Energy Policy

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their energy policy in the light of the 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will be taken into account when the Government finalise their climate change programme in the autumn. We aim to make a full response to the report's 87 recommendations within a year. That is the normal time frame for responding to Royal Commission reports.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, what will the Government be doing, along with United Nations agencies, to monitor other countries' actions in respect of the convention?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the UK is working closely with the commission and the International Energy Agency to monitor projections of emissions and how they compare with the Kyoto targets and the policies to deliver savings.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister give us any indication when the House will be able to debate that very important Royal Commission report? In view of the great urgency of countering climate change, as set out in the report, will he prevail on his noble friend Lord Whitty to reconsider his comment in the House a week ago that, on CO 2 emissions, the total volume of traffic is not the issue? Even at this late stage, road and air traffic limitation targets could be introduced in the Transport Bill.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it will be for the usual channels to consider when such a debate can take place. I think that I can speak authoritatively for my noble friend in saying that the answer to the question about the Transport Bill is "No".

Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Government's forthcoming statement deal with the period beyond 2010? They have a demanding objective for 2010 that we may get somewhere near, but with the withdrawal of the nuclear-powered stations, the problems after that date will be much more serious. We ought to be planning for that now.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the finalisation of the climate change programme, which will come in the autumn, will give more consideration to the long-term position. As the noble Lord says, the target for 2010 is very demanding, but the situation after that will be even more difficult, particularly on the assumption of a run-down of nuclear energy.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the Minister been made aware of the increase in pollution arising from Internet shopping? A study in the Netherlands has shown that Internet shopping has already added 17 per cent to the traffic involved in buying household goods. If that carries on, the Government will have a real problem with increasing road traffic pollution. What do they propose to do about that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, although I know quite a bit about Internet shopping, I was not aware of that fact. There is another school of thought that equally confidently believes that Internet shopping will help by cutting the transport requirements of major supermarket chains, which is clearly a highly desirable goal.

Water Supply

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the prospects for a national water grid.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, watercourses and pipelines already transfer water over long distances in several parts of the United Kingdom to provide water supplies. The development of further transfers will be subject to assessment of their environmental impact, future demand for water, and the availability of sustainable supplies. In a proposed joint venture with the private sector, British Waterways is examining further use of the canal network to supply water of all qualities, including potable, linking the North West and the Midlands to London and the South East.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister give us more information about that interesting proposal? For years, we have been trying to devise a scheme for moving water from the North, where it is more plentiful, to the South, where it is lacking. It seems that there is now a real prospect of overcoming that problem. When could such a project come about? Might it seriously alleviate the problems in the South over the next few years, bearing in mind the Government's plans for building so many more houses in the South East?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the main pressure on water supplies is in the South East and the main supply of water is in the North. The canal system can deal with only part of that, because it is not a universal network. However, I assure the noble Lord that the proposed public/private partnership has passed its initial feasibility study. There is a prospect of the supply of water of different qualities to ultimate suppliers through the canal system. That may come into play within a few years. There has been definite progress.

Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble friend has been asking this question since 1989. Have not the Government had long enough to think of a rather less preliminary answer?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot answer for the first eight years of that period. Since my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had responsibility for waterways, he has been extremely anxious that British Waterways should look at the way in which it can use its assets for wider purposes--both regeneration and, in this case, developing long-term ability to transfer water. We have gone ahead with the study. The technical side has been addressed and we are looking at the financing side. We believe that if we can provide different qualities of water for different consumers, there will be a strong commercial case for the proposal. Therefore, we are now well on the road.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I recognise the desirability of transferring water from the wetter regions to the drier regions and I note the contribution which the canal system can make to regional transfers. But will the Minister take note also of the very considerable energy costs which would be involved in any large-scale and long-distance grid system transferring water over very considerable distances? That was certainly one of the factors which influenced the view of the National Rivers Authority during the time that I was its chairman.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if we were looking to use the canal system and existing waterways for a total transfer and a total national grid, clearly there would be substantial energy implications. There will be some energy implications even for those areas which we are looking at, but we believe that those will be taken care of in terms of the investment that is required, the commercial return and the environmental benefit which could be achieved by using British Waterways' assets in that way.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, it seems that there is a proposal to transfer water from the North West to the South East. Surely, if energy is needed to pump water up hills, hydro-electric energy can be generated beside locks when the water comes down hills?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that, in principle, my noble friend is absolutely correct on that. However, the water course does not operate quite as systematically as his question implies. There will be points at which a degree of help with the flow may be necessary; but in general we shall be working with gravity rather than against it.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps the Government may find it easier to make it rain when the water is required than to use some of those very complicated systems. What research is being carried out into rain-making in the areas where it might be required?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, judging by recent days, that requirement is perhaps less immediately necessary than the noble and gallant Lord suggests. However, there are longer-term climate change issues which must be addressed. It may well be that the South of England will become drier and the prognostications tend to suggest that the North of England will become wetter. In those circumstances, the proposed scheme would be even more desirable, without intervening directly with precipitation in the way in which the noble and gallant Lord was considering.

Part-Time Police Force

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress is being made in considering the potential of a part-time police force to support regular forces.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government are currently looking at whether a part-time or retained police officers scheme would be a viable and useful tool in the fight against crime, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas. Creating such a force would not be straightforward. We shall need to discuss the issues it raises with the police service and police authorities before reaching any firm conclusions on the merits of the proposal.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that reply, from which I draw considerable comfort. Is the Minister aware of the very serious recruitment crisis in the police, particularly in London and the South East, where house prices are so high?
	Although the Government have made money available for recruitment, is the Minister aware of the wastage rates? In my own police force of Thames Valley, in June we recruited 23 new officers, which is the number needed to meet the Government's targets. Twenty officers resigned in that time. So that is a net improvement of three.
	Is it not time to face up to the potential crisis and that real urgency--perhaps something which is in rather short supply sometimes in the Home Office--was directed towards how police numbers could be enhanced by the use of retained or auxiliary policemen?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I dispute the noble Lord's comment that there is not real urgency in the Home Office in relation to this problem. There obviously is a real problem, both in the Metropolitan Police and the Thames Valley Police, which the noble Lord mentioned. Of course, he has a distinguished role with that force.
	The figures for Thames Valley are that the force may recruit a maximum of approximately 240 new officers per year, dictated by training course capacity. A number of officers voluntarily resigned from the force during the course of last year. Twenty-six officers were transferred in from other forces during last year. But I am pleased to say that 151 probationer constables were appointed during this year. There is a problem of recruitment which the Government are determined to conquer.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, obviously, the police force operates in an employment marketplace? The real answer to the problem is proper establishments and a police force which is fully up to strength. In the light of that, does my noble friend agree that remuneration is a crucial element? The previous government took away the housing allowance. The sooner that is replaced throughout the country, the better it will be for recruitment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. He has made the point on a number of occasions. In the opinion of the Government, it is one which cannot be made too often. Police pay is based on national pay scales. Starting pay for police officers compares favourably with other public service occupations. A police officer will now earn £16,635 on recruitment, whereas a fire-fighter will earn £15,381; a prison officer £15,842; an immigration officer £14,224 and a graduate teacher £15,537. Anyone who suggests the Government are not doing anything about that is obviously wrong.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope this is not a stupid question. Could the Minister tell me the difference between a part-time police force and a special constabulary?

Lord Bach: My Lords, that is certainly not a stupid question, but an extremely good one, if I may say so. It appears that I may!
	The essential difference is that of payment. Special constables are unpaid. Many special constables join up through altruism and obviously not for financial gain. However, the relationship of the special constabulary to a part-time force is one of the issues raised by the creation of such a force. The Government are considering that issue at present.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is necessary for the Government to continue to involve the normal citizen in helping the police authorities where needed. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of the citizen to support the maintenance of law and order, and, therefore, that the Government should do everything they can to create the climate of opinion in which this naturally arises from the duty of citizenship?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is the duty of citizens both to assist the police and do their own bit as far as concerns maintaining law and order. Noble Lords will know that the neighbourhood warden scheme is up and running. That affects ordinary members of the public associated with it. However, it should be said that special constables are ordinary citizens who give up their free time in order to preserve law and order. They do their bit for the public, unpaid. I know that this House greatly respects what they do. I am delighted to say that the Ferrers Trophy--named after the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers--for the special constable of the year, has been awarded to Daren Fitter of the Leicestershire Constabulary, a special constable in my home town of Lutterworth.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the targets set up following the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence about the recruitment of people from ethnic minorities, black and Asian police officers, have not been met and are very much below target? It is highly unlikely that the target set by the Home Office will be met. Does the Minister accept that one way to build the confidence of the minority is to establish a part-time police force within which at least they would have a first stepping stone towards a career in the police service?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the ideas and views of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this issue are always treated by the Government with the greatest respect. His idea concerns the very real problem of recruiting and retaining ethnic minority police officers. We shall consider this proposal with the same interest as we consider his other proposals.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, is not the problem as much in the deployment of existing policemen as in the recruitment of new ones? I ask the Minister to comment in particular--he probably cannot do so immediately--on the employment of an armed car in the Isle of Wight which has meant that the police force available to police the island, which is very small in any case, has been depleted by 14 men.

Lord Bach: My Lords, deployment is important. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the position in the Isle of Wight. However, I shall look into the matter and write to him.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of one other possible source of recruitment for police forces in England and Wales; that is, Northern Ireland. What are the Government doing to make it possible for serving RUC officers to ask to be transferred to the Metropolitan Police or other police forces over here where there is a shortage of recruits?

Lord Bach: My Lords, interesting and new ideas do not come only from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My noble friend's idea is new to me and one that I should like to consider. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the reports in the newspapers of the law and order problem created by the growth of late night clubs operating in inner cities, generally in disused warehouses and similar premises, which turn out their occupants in the middle of the night, sometimes at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m? Would it not be difficult to get part-time police officers to serve at such inconvenient hours? Would not a better answer be for local authorities to refuse planning permission for these operations which cause such great difficulties for the police?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to comment on issues which are far beyond my brief. All I would say is that police officers, whether regular officers or special constables, have to put themselves at considerable risk in a way that many members of the public are not always aware of. They do so at night, not just in our big cities but in our small towns, at "chucking-out" time, whether it be in clubs or pubs. Their bravery, in the face of unwarranted aggression by those who are kicked out, has been praised in this House before and should be praised again.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister say what encouragement the Government are giving to neighbourhood watch schemes?

Lord Bach: My Lords, like the previous Government, this Government have supported neighbourhood watch schemes to a great extent. I am not in a position to give figures to the noble Baroness, but we support the schemes in precisely the same way as her Government did, and so that should be. This is a matter which should be beyond party.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the suggestion by his noble friend Lord Dubs is one which could have wide support, particularly when the situation in Northern Ireland permits? Can the Minister tell us about the present position of the exiting part-time police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve? Are they being looked after properly?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall be frank with the House. I have no information about the part-time police force in Northern Ireland. The best I can do is to write to the noble Lord.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister tell us if there is any indication that there will be a Government Statement within this calendar year on the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw? Is he aware that the point made by his noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate is a powerful one? The recruitment crisis in London is caused by the acceptance of the then Government's Sheehy report, which has done so much damage to the police service in this country.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give a definite answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as to whether or not that will be within this calendar year. The matter is under active consideration by the Home Office. The noble Lord will know better than I what that means. There must be every chance that a fairly early conclusion will be reached. However, I cannot go further than that. My noble friend was right; the Sheehy report and all that followed did, and continues to do, quite a lot of damage.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that many police forces have been selling police homes and police stations in rural areas. Are the Government now satisfied with the policing of rural areas in general?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords, we are not satisfied. That is the reason that extra money already has been given to ensure that policing, and particularly call-out times, in rural areas are improved. We are not satisfied. More needs to be done, and something is being done already.

Guide Dogs: Carriage by Taxi

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress there has been in introducing regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to allow the carriage of guide dogs in licensed taxis and private hire cars.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act covers the carriage of guide dogs and hearing dogs in licensed taxis. There are no powers in that Act to cover private hire cars. We shall be starting consultation this week on our proposals for implementation of Section 37. A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he accept that in many parts of the country if one needs to hire a driven vehicle, one is restricted to using a private hire firm? If those hire firms decide to ban people who have with them a dog for sight or hearing support, that person is effectively restricted to their home or may be forced to pay higher sums of money for the service. Is not the Act therefore effectively condoning a form of discrimination?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is much in what the noble Lord says; but the fact is that the powers in the DDA do not at the moment cover private hire cars. There will shortly be consultation in relation to private hire cars in London, but the situation is as I described it in the rest of the country.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am astonished at my noble friend's reply. Does he agree that it is obvious that blind people need to be accompanied by their guide dogs and it is therefore amazing that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act has not already been implemented, especially bearing in mind that the Act itself was enacted in 1995? Does my noble friend recall that the Government stated last year that action would be taken to implement Section 37 early in the new year? He now says that considered discussions will start this week. Can he assure us that those discussions will not be protracted and that there will be no further slippage? Blind people are suffering as a consequence of lack of proper regulation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says in relation to the non-coverage of private hire vehicles. Nevertheless, it remains the fact that we have no powers to issue regulations covering private hire vehicles. My noble friend is right that we originally hoped to start this consultation earlier in the year. Indeed, I indicated to the House that we hoped to start it in March. It has taken slightly longer because of the need to address the issue of medical exemptions on this front. However, the consultation document requires the medical exemptions to be sorted by November this year and the full regulations to come into force in March next year. There will be no delay in that.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the initial reply from the noble Lord indicates that the situation has not changed since his Written Answer to me on 25th May. Does he accept that a substantial and important part of the Disability Discrimination Act applies to transport? That was strongly advocated and supported in this House especially by our mobile Bench; in other words, by the "wheelchair squadron".

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is why we prioritised the regulations covering buses, coaches and railway carriages. The regulations therefore cover much of the public transport system already. The next stage is for them to apply to taxis.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the few private hire firms that carry dogs, it is common practice to apply extra charges? In one case which recently came to my attention, the increase was 20 per cent. Will the Minister consider that for those who are on benefit that may be a severe imposition on an already limited income?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, one would have to look clearly at the individual circumstances and the charging regimes that apply within those private hire companies. But, on the face of it, I agree with the noble Earl.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the consultations have to be so complicated? They seem quite simple to me.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of the lessons one learns from sitting on these Benches is that consultation is never simple. It always appears simple at the beginning, but ends up being extremely complicated. We are talking of a consultation period of approximately three months, which is normal in such circumstances. That will cover all those who are interested in these regulations.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say why it has taken this Government three years to move towards consultation which, if it is going to take only three months, could have been done long ago?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we prioritised applying regulations to buses, coaches and other areas of the transport system. We have to do this sequentially, and we are now addressing the taxi problem.

Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that in future when the Government consider transport policy they will consider whole journeys which cover more than one type of transport? We are talking here of a broken link in the transport chain. Can the Minister assure us that in future all the various links in a journey will be brought together as a whole?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the noble Lord considers the Transport Bill later today and the transport plan later this week, he will find that we are addressing transport problems in a holistic way and in a way that is of benefit to the disabled members of our community.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on teachers' performance pay: the High Court judgment.

Liaison: Select Committee Reports

Lord Tordoff: rose to move, That the 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Select Committee (HL Papers 62 and 81) be agreed to.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I regret to have to inform the House that the Chairman of Committees is somewhat unwell, and I regret even more that I therefore have to stand in to move this Motion for him. I rise to move that these reports be agreed to with double trepidation because I am not actually a member of the Liaison Committee, although I sit in attendance along with the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
	The reports are the outcome of a review by the Liaison Committee of the committee activity of the House. This is the first general review of committee work since the report of the committee on the committee work of the House in 1982, which noble Lords will remember was under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and on which both the Chairman of Committees and I had the honour to serve.
	The setting up of the Liaison Committee was one of the fruits of that work, as was the setting up of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which I am sure we would all agree has been extremely successful. The Liaison Committee has now concluded that the time is right to build on the foundations laid by the Jellicoe Committee and to expand on the range of committee work which the House undertakes. The two reports propose the appointment of two new sessional committees, one to consider constitutional questions and the other to consider economic questions. Taken together with the new Joint Committee on Human Rights, the new committees represent a significant expansion of the House's committee activity and will require substantial additional resources. Last week the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee agreed to the provision of the necessary additional Clerks and other staff.
	Finally, I should mention that the Liaison Committee shares the Jellicoe Committee's wish to continue to make regular use of ad hoc committees and recommended the appointment of an ad hoc committee on animal experimentation. The Liaison Committee would welcome your Lordships' constructive suggestions--I repeat, constructive suggestions--for future ad hoc committees. I beg to move.

Moved, That the 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Select Committee (HL Papers 62 and 81) be agreed to.--(Lord Tordoff.)

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I can briefly detain the House. Although I am interested in the appointments, the setting up of the economic committee, which is an extremely important development, does not have the advantage of having included with it terms of reference, as there are with the proposed constitutional committee. I am sure that these will be agreed. But I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that, in drawing up those terms of reference, he will ensure that there is proper complementarity between the role of the proposed economic committee and the current role of Sub-Committee A of the European Union Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me that assurance this afternoon. Clearly, it is important that each committee should be able to continue with its role without there being a turf war between them.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome these proposals. I believe that Select Committees reflect this House at its best. I am very keen on expansion of such committees, as envisaged in these reports, but I have two questions for the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. First, I welcome the fact that a committee is to be established to study animal experimentation, but is there any reason why this is to be an ad hoc committee rather than part of the Science and Technology Committee?
	Secondly, the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the Third Report says that the recommendations are made,
	"on the assumption that the House will be prepared to provide these resources".
	Can the noble Lord tell us whether this is a matter for the House or for the Treasury?

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I believe we all recognise the great value of these committees of the House, which are acknowledged almost throughout the world for their impartiality and fairness. I have one question to raise on the third report as regards the proposed constitutional committee, which has terms of reference:
	"To examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution".
	The following paragraph says that the,
	"staff needs of the Committee beyond a clerk will depend on how it chooses to work. We recommend that initially the Committee should seek any specialist support which it needs from specialist advisers".
	My point to the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is as follows. As regards these specialist advisers, can the noble Lord say whether we will have the same stage army of pressure group people coming in under this guise and purporting to give impartial advice to a House of Lords committee?
	My question may sound far fetched, but on 5th July this year, when speaking during the Committee stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, I drew attention to the recent publication by Charter 88 under the pretentious title of Unlocking Democracy and said (at col. 1486 of Hansard) that I feared the monarchy would be a target of these zealots in the not too-distant future. I also drew attention to the All-Party Constitution and Citizenship Group of Parliament which, as noble Lords will know, represents all shades of opinion in both Houses. I looked into the background of this group and found out, as I then informed the Committee, that, under the heading "Benefits from outside sources", it also says:
	"Administrative support is provided by Charter 88".
	That information then goes on to give the contact name of,
	"Michelle Mitchell, Parliamentary Officer Charter 88".
	Despite its success, this is only a pressure group. However, if that is right at the heart of an all-party group, can the noble Lord give me an assurance that it will not be right at the heart of the proposed constitutional committee?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees a question on a different point. Can he tell us what progress, if any, has been made on the committee on treaties? Such treaties are now expanding in large numbers and there is very little accountability to either House on these issues.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to raise the issue of animal experimentation, as I understand that one of the proposed groups is to look into the matter. This also reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. We know that pressure groups come to this House and visit the committees, as well as giving advice. However, there are companies that carry out legitimate business during the process of which they save many people's lives in this country--that applies especially to our children. I speak with some knowledge on the subject because I had a son who, before he died, was diabetic. His treatment came quite precisely from animal experimentation.
	Such companies have to survive and they are very much affected at present by lobbying groups that engage in almost terrorist activities to disrupt their work. While this review takes place, I believe that it is beholden on the Government to support those companies. They are governed by very rigorous rules and regulations to which they are adhering. As long as they do so, the Government should quite overtly protect their legitimate activity and their role in the fight against disease in this country.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question for the noble Lord about the proposed constitutional committee. Can he tell the House into what degree of detail it is intended that the committee will go when it considers public Bills? From time to time, UK Bills on matters reserved to Westminster have implications for the Scots Parliament, of which the latter turns out not to be aware--or, alternatively, such Bills should have implications for the Scots Parliament but do not because the Government have tried to avoid getting into a matter that has in fact been devolved but which would be necessary for the implementation of the UK Bill.
	Can the noble Lord say whether that kind of issue will arise? Indeed, it has just happened on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. I can provide the noble Lord with information in that respect, if he wishes. However, I just wonder whether that kind of issue will be considered or whether the proposed committee will be thinking at a higher level.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is absolutely essential that we should not delay any longer than necessary the setting up of a committee for the scrutiny of international treaties. In that context, can the noble Lord tell us when the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is expected to report--for example, are we talking in terms of weeks, months or years?

Lord Winston: My Lords, as chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, perhaps I may address an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs. I believe that it was widely felt both on that committee and, to some extent, on the Liaison Committee that an issue as far reaching as animal experimentation, which was not merely a scientific issue, could quite properly form part of the considerations of an ad hoc committee. Concern was also expressed that, as scientists, a number of the members of the Science and Technology Committee might be regarded parti pris as having certain interests and a particular view about animal experimentation.
	It was also widely felt that this is a hugely important subject and one that affects our science base. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, it affects some very key social and ethical issues. There are also important legal and regulatory issues involved that would be well worth considering at this stage. That seemed to us to be a very timely subject for an important ad hoc committee.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his contribution. I believe that his remarks have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and probably gone some way towards answering the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Clearly, the matters raised by the noble Baroness fall within the scope of this committee. However, it will be for that committee to decide how far it will look into such matters. The composition of such a committee is also important. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, we must ensure that it is not simply scientists who take part: the committee will also need to take into account and consider ethical, moral and, indeed, legal issues. I am quite sure that the type of issues raised by the noble Baroness could be swept up within the considerations of this committee. If she wished to give evidence to the committee, I dare say that its members would welcome such a move.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, raised the question of the overlap between Sub-Committee A and the proposed economic committee. Putting on my European Select Committee hat, I have to say that that prospect gave me some concern. It is a matter that we shall have to discuss to ensure that there is no turf war, as sometimes happens in the other place between committees; for example, there is occasionally an overlap of interests between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I am sure that we can sort out such matters between us. The opportunity for disputes could arise in that respect. We must be aware of them and ensure that we resolve such issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, mentioned specialist advisers. I remind him that he should not confuse membership of all-party groups and the discussions on Select Committees of your Lordships' House. In my experience, specialist advisers are very carefully chosen. They are people who have knowledge but who are not too parti pris. Occasionally you cannot avoid that. The thing to do then, of course, is to have two specialist advisers, one from each side of the argument. We hope to avoid that wherever possible. The noble Lord mentioned Charter 88 being used by the all-party groups. However, that is a different matter from that of specialist advisers. Bodies such as Charter 88 may be asked to give evidence to a Select Committee, but I think that they are unlikely to be asked to be specialist advisers.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the scrutiny of treaties. As she will note from paragraph 6, it has been decided to await the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee before we make a recommendation. That is right and proper as we do not want to tread on each other's toes. I am not sure that I can say when that is likely to be completed. I suppose that the normal answer from the Dispatch Box in that regard is "soon".
	The Scottish implications of the constitutional committee need to be considered. I should have thought that that would fall within the scope of the constitutional committee, but that will depend on the way in which it interprets its terms of reference. A submission to that committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, or others might help it considerably in drawing up its agenda. I believe that I have answered the questions.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cheques (Scotland) Bill [HL]

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works Bill [HL]

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).--(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
	[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 162 [Preliminary]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 199:
	Page 98, line 39, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 41 and insert ("unless incurred in respect of the use or keeping of that motor vehicle on a road by a person in possession or control of that motor vehicle without the consent of the registered owner (in which event that person shall pay the charges in question)").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 268, the wording of which is identical. Amendment No. 268 seeks to amend Schedule 13.
	The Bill provides that the owner of a vehicle shall be liable for any charges payable for the keeping or using of a vehicle on a particular road. That is fine, assuming that the relevant charge is paid, but there are, unfortunately, numerous occasions on which the person liable to pay the charges inadvertently is not responsible for his car.
	I can best illustrate that point by referring to my son-in-law, whose car was taken from outside his house in Notting Hill some years ago. The police found it about a quarter of a mile away. The thieves had thoughtfully changed the number plates which made identification somewhat of a problem. The car appeared to have been used for almost everything except transport purposes. Under the terms of the Bill, my son-in-law would have been liable for any charges incurred during the time the vehicle was stolen. We do not think that is right.
	This simple little amendment is designed to ensure that in such unfortunate circumstances, or in others that people can envisage without too great a stretch of the imagination, the owner should not be liable for the charges that we are discussing. I believe that it is appropriate to include the amendment on the face of the Bill. The question of who should, or should not, pay taxation in particular circumstances is an important matter. Taxation should be introduced by legislation, not regulation. This is a point of principle. I hope that the Minister will adopt a positive attitude and will say that he will take on board what I have said. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments in this group. I am pleased to be able to start our deliberation on Part III by entirely agreeing with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendments. However, I hope that I can assure him that his concern will be dealt with through regulations.
	Clause 162 provides that the registered keeper of a vehicle will be responsible for paying road user charges unless regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that clause provide otherwise. We intend that these regulations will provide that where a vehicle is reported to the police as stolen or taken without the consent of the registered keeper, any charges incurred will be the responsibility of whoever took the vehicle. We also propose a similar approach for penalty charges, using regulations under Clause 172, and that the same approach will apply in London. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister's response is satisfactory to a large degree in that he has addressed the intention of the amendment. I suspect that on a number of occasions as we progress through this part of the Bill Divisions will occur over what should or should not be on the face of the Bill. As I say, I question whether it is appropriate to introduce taxation through regulation. I shall need to reconsider the matter. Whether my patience on the matter runs out before the end of the day's proceedings remains to be seen. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 162 agreed to.
	Clause 163 [Local charging schemes]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: moved Amendment No. 200:
	Page 99, line 26, at end insert ("provided those policies lead to an overall reduction in local traffic").

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the money raised through road user charging and the workplace parking levy--which we totally support--is used for the right purposes. The Bill is a little ambivalent on that point. As one of the main objects of the Bill is to get traffic off the roads, that money should not be spent on road building. It should, for example, be spent on better public transport services and on facilities for cycling or walking, much of which may involve roads in one way or another. It should on the whole be applicable only to those purposes which will reduce road use by vehicular traffic. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have some sympathy with the amendments--although they are somewhat prescriptive in the sense that if the money can be used only for the purpose of reducing road traffic and not, for example, for improving safety on the roads, we shall get into a difficult situation. However, can the Minister tell the Committee the relationship between this Bill and the Road Traffic Reduction Act, which places an obligation on local authorities to reduce traffic in their areas?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for explaining the thinking behind these amendments. Although I am unable to accept them for reasons that will become clear, I am sympathetic to his concerns.
	As drafted, the Bill contains the safeguard that local authority charging schemes must help to achieve the policies in a local authority's local transport plan. We have already said that the Secretary of State's approval for schemes introduced in England will depend on the local authority demonstrating that its scheme will have a direct impact on tackling local congestion problems. In particular, we have said that we do not envisage approving schemes that are designed only to raise revenue. We will want each scheme to state clearly its objectives and to set out how its performance will be monitored against those objectives. Consequently, I contend that the noble Lord's amendments are unnecessary.
	Further, I fear that the noble Lord's amendments would create unintended difficulties because of the way they have been worded. As drafted, the amendments would mean that a scheme could not be introduced if it resulted in a reduction in the growth of local traffic levels rather than in an absolute reduction in local traffic levels; nor would a scheme be able to proceed if it resulted in a reduction in peak-hour congestion by encouraging the redistribution of road use over the remainder of the day rather than in an absolute reduction in total traffic. Reducing traffic growth or encouraging better use of road space could bring significant benefits to areas where charges are introduced. I do not believe that it would be right to rule out those possibilities.
	For the record, I should like to assure the Committee that we shall be working with charging authorities and funding research to monitor the impact of road user charging schemes to make sure that we learn lessons and pass on best practice to others.
	I hope that my comments and assurances have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
	I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I do not feel that anything in the Bill will be at odds with attempts to reduce congestion elsewhere. On the issues of congestion and pollution, we have said that we are looking to local authorities to begin to benchmark at local level what is required across the country. We are very grateful to the Commission for Integrated Transport--on which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, sits--for its advice on how best that may be introduced by local authorities.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the Minister for his explanation and reassurances. I shall read what he said. I think it unlikely that I shall come back to this matter at a later stage as I believe that I have received enough reassurances in regard to the Government's intentions and their proposed ways of putting them into practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 201:
	Page 99, line 26, at end insert--
	("(3) In a case where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which the town is placed.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 163 deals with the creation of local charging schemes. In drafting the amendment, I debated with myself whether it was appropriate to this clause or whether it should form a new clause. However, I think it sits perfectly well with this clause. Although there are other aspects of the clause which I do not regard as satisfactory, they concern different principles from those covered in this amendment.
	In most non-metropolitan areas of the United Kingdom--I am sorry; we should bear in mind that we are talking here only of England and Wales--local authorities have two separate tiers. If this Bill is eventually passed, the authority responsible for the local transport plan--the local transport authority--will be the county council, which will have, rightly, all the powers under the Bill. In giving it those powers, Parliament will create an enormous potential for conflict between those responsible for administering transport policy and, in many cases, those who may feel that they have to sit and suffer the consequences--that is, the district councils.
	District councils are rightly proud of their integrity and responsibility within their own areas. In this situation the closest co-operation, consultation and negotiation will be absolutely essential for the smooth running of any transport plan in a shire area. One has to think only of the circumstances which exist in my own county and across many other counties--where even a district council may have three or four main towns within its area--to see that there could be difficulties. Some district councils already have problems with the integrity of a particular town within their district; exacerbating the situation in a large county such as Essex-- it has 13 districts, many of which are multi-town districts--could produce real problems.
	The amendment seeks to ensure that where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge--I think the correct wording should have been a "charging scheme"--in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which that town is located. If we are not to create a series of minor civil wars across the face of this land, that should be on the face of the Bill. It is very important.
	It may be that the Minister will feel inclined to say that he has every intention of introducing regulations to bring about the situation I seek. If he has, he could equally honourably say that he will accept the amendment--or, at least, if he does not like the wording, that he will bring back an amendment of his own. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Again I find myself in sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord. I certainly expect district councils in two-tier areas to be fully consulted about any proposals to introduce a charging or licensing scheme in their area and their views to be taken carefully into account. I should say that we are talking here only about England and not about Wales. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to give district councils a veto over the introduction of schemes. The statutory responsibility for the charging and licensing powers rests firmly with the local traffic authority. Allowing district councils to veto plans would blur that responsibility.
	However, I assure Members of the Committee that we will ensure that district councils are properly consulted over any proposals, using our scheme approval powers, or regulations on the procedures for making scheme orders. If there is a disagreement between a local traffic authority and a district council I envisage that that is something the Secretary of State would consider as part of his approval of schemes. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree not to press the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are on more or less the same ground as we were previously. Will the noble Lord consider bringing forward amendments to the Bill to give effect to what he has said rather than simply do it by ministerial fiat or by regulation? We really do need to see this case decided clearly.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am not able to offer that assurance. However, in the context of all the other assurances that I have offered--not just on the use of regulations on procedures but on scheme approval powers--I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the point.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do about his amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee how he sees the situation when congestion charging or a reduction in congestion is being sought not in major towns such as Nottingham or Derby, which are recognised centres for their areas, but in one of our smaller towns, where total cessation of movement of any kind is most likely to occur? If a scheme was introduced in small town A but no scheme was introduced in small town B, all the traffic would move to small town B in order to try to get into the town for free. How does the Minister think the Secretary of State would deal with that kind of observation were it to be brought to him during the course of his approval activities?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: We would respond to that situation by ensuring that there had been full consultation and that the Secretary of State was well informed of the concerns expressed by the smaller towns. If there was going to be any disproportionate effect on any specific area, that would be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of his approval of the schemes.

Lord Dixon-Smith: In his reply the Minister makes it remarkably difficult to disagree with him. The problem is that an outcome which is satisfactory as to conclusion but is not satisfactory as to method is not one which I find to be wholly satisfactory. Although it is early in the afternoon and we are not used to walking and exercising at such an early hour, I nonetheless want to test the view of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 134.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 202:
	Page 99, line 26, at end insert--
	("( ) Where a local charging scheme is introduced in order to fund improvements to facilitate the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local transport plan, the charging scheme shall cease when the relevant improvements have been paid for.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have tabled a series of amendments which seek to determine exactly what are the Government's intentions as regards these new taxes. Perhaps I may put it this way: are those intentions honourable and straightforward? Are the taxes intended to be levied locally and then used for the benefit of local people? Furthermore, if an authority cannot think of a good use to which to put them, will they cease? That, I believe, is what should happen.
	Unfortunately, the Bill provides otherwise. It states that such taxes can be initiated locally, but subsequently can become national taxes. In my view, that would impose on local transport authorities the odium of having to introduce a new tax which subsequently would be pocketed by the Treasury, to its benefit. I do not think that that is an appropriate way of approaching this.
	This amendment provides that, where a local transport authority sees the need for particular improvements to help with traffic flows within its own area, it should be able to design a charging scheme which relates directly to those improvements. Thereafter, the charge should cease.
	It is conceivable that the Minister will say that that is perfectly possible. However, we have encountered many problems in the Bill on the matter of hypothecation. The best assurance that we have received so far has been that schemes begun within 10 years from when the Bill comes into effect will have revenue hypothecated to them for a period of 10 years from their initiation. However, anyone familiar with the development of the transport industry over the centuries--from the time of the horse and cart, through to stage-coaches, canals, railways and so forth--will know that one needs to deal with a constantly evolving situation. Transport demands change all the time, and the problems to be solved change alongside them. People will always seek new and often radical solutions.
	However, it is almost always the case that those who deal with such problems at the local level know best what needs to be done to improve their own particular circumstances. I have every confidence that if charging schemes are introduced, they will be used well and in the local interest. That is right and proper. However, I am also of the view that if an authority cannot think of any scheme to be funded by the new charge that would significantly improve matters, either the new charge should not be introduced or--this is probably more likely because I suspect that all authorities will be able to devise new schemes--when no more valid ideas are put forward, no more charges should be levied.
	That does not mean that the charging system would become invalid. That is because if, after a number of years, new problems are revealed, the power will still be in place under the Bill to introduce a charging scheme to fund the necessary changes to solve those new problems.
	This little amendment addresses what is in fact a very important principle for local transport authorities, for local government generally and, indeed, for national government. If the amendment were accepted, that would signal that national government had accepted--almost for the first time in my long experience in local government--that local government can, and does, behave responsibly and that it acts in the interests of local communities. That, in itself, would be rather novel. I accept that the amendment may not be perfectly worded, so if the Minister would like to take it away and bring forward an improved version at a later stage, I should be a happy man.
	I repeat: the issues that lie behind this little amendment are both profound and important. I felt that it was important for us to hold a short debate--even if that debate is to be held between only myself and the Minister. I am sure that we shall have several fascinating discussions across the Table today. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The noble Lord has rightly said that the amendment raises an important philosophical point. It goes to the heart of the purpose for which road charges are to be levied. If the amendment were accepted, it would reduce road charging to an entirely pragmatic and practical device for dealing with local problems: for example, easing some physical phenomenon causing congestion or introducing some scheme to even out traffic flow through the day so as to lessen congestion.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Bill had been conceived in the context of wanting to deal not only with practical issues but with environmental ones. In the broad environmental context, the secondary purpose of road charging is to deal with physical problems in local areas. Its primary purpose, however, is to deter people from using their cars as much as they presently do. If that is the primary purpose and it is the Government's intention that it should remain so, I very much hope that the amendment will be resisted. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure the Committee that one of the reasons for charging, whether on trunk roads or in local areas, is to deter traffic and to encourage people to find other means of going from A to B, or indeed to encourage them to travel less.
	If that remains the primary purpose of road charging, it could reasonably be said that it will never be achieved. It may work slowly and gradually, but the prospect of lifting the charges simply does not arise, because the necessity to restrict traffic growth will continue, and indeed increase. If we take seriously the recommendation of the Royal Commission that we must cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 50 years, there will have to be an enormous reduction in road traffic use. Charging schemes can play a part--not the only part--in achieving that reduction. The amendment goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the Transport Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond on that point.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important issue. It goes to the centre of the objectives of the charging scheme.
	The Committee should be assured that we do not envisage approving charging schemes that are designed simply to raise revenue. The right reverend Prelate went straight to the heart of the matter. We can confirm that we expect the charges to have a direct bearing on local congestion problems. We believe that, to be effective, the introduction of charges must be matched by increased spending on local transport to provide people with real alternatives to the car. Our ground-breaking hypothecation guarantee will ensure that that can happen.
	However, it is clear that the introduction of transport improvements alone may, in many cases, not be sufficient to reduce congestion. It is likely that the restraint effect of a charge to enter a town or city will be an essential part of the package that manages traffic demand and delivers lower congestion. One can envisage a situation some years hence where significant transport infrastructure improvements have been paid for through a charging regime, congestion has been reduced, and an authority may decide at that point to discontinue charges. But there is the other important consideration: sustaining the reduction in congestion. That may require that road user charges are kept in order to restrain traffic. It would therefore be wrong to rule out the possibility of local authorities deciding that charges should continue.
	Amendment No. 202 ignores the important traffic demand management effect that the charges will have. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution on the problems created by congestion, particularly carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions produced by the internal combustion engine. Those problems will be solved not as a result of provisions in the Bill but as a result of developments taking place in the motor industry, as we still call it, because what will happen over the next 25, 30 or 40 years is that the internal combustion engine will become out of date.
	I should declare not so much an interest as a fascination. I chaired the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee which examined the future of the internal combustion engine specifically in regard to exhaust emissions. There is the obvious progress that is being made with the internal combustion engine, but that is not an answer in itself. The committee arrived at a conclusion that surprised me; namely, that we shall see fuel-cell-powered cars on the roads. Initially, they will still produce carbon dioxide, but not all the other noxious emissions. Ultimately, they will be hydrogen powered and will produce nothing except water. At that point we shall face an ethical dilemma. We shall have completely non-polluting vehicles that are absolutely silent. I can see the time coming when we put bells on them, rather like bicycle bells, so as to warn pedestrians that they are coming--but that is a slight red herring. That is the way in which the industry is moving. The provisions in the Bill to deal with pollution will not provide a solution before the motor industry itself provides the technical answer.
	Congestion could be argued to be a voluntary tax paid by society for the benefit of enjoying a reasonably high degree of mobility. I would always rather pay a voluntary tax than a compulsory one. It is a simple principle. The Minister seems to be saying that he would prefer the situation to be the other way round, and that we should reduce the need to travel. That need could have been reduced voluntarily, apart from the fact that we have spent 30 or 35 years developing a society in which we do need to travel. Anyone who thinks that the hundreds of thousands of housewives whom I see shopping every week, coming out of the supermarket with a trolley laden with goods that must often weigh more than a hundredweight, are going to carry that home on a bus has another think coming. They will pay a road congestion charge if they have to, because, sadly, there is now no alternative--unless we return to having large numbers of small shops and, more importantly, unless housewives are prepared to spend the time to go shopping every other day, as my mother used to do. I do not think that that kind of reverse revolution in society will take place. The issues are important. I do not believe that the situation will necessarily be better if these moneys are continued on a national basis rather than being decided locally.
	There are two possible outcomes. One is that local authorities levy the charges and they are called in aid of other local expenditure, which may or may not be reasonable. If we are simply creating another form of local revenue, so be it. But that is not what we are told the Bill is about. If the money is to be part of the national revenue, we are in an even worse situation. The initiative for introducing the charges will have been taken locally. There is no certainty, apart from the small piece of blackmail in the guidance to which I have referred, that local transport authorities will necessarily introduce these charges all over the country. There is no compulsion to do so. I can envisage that they may not be introduced by a number of authorities in less well advantaged parts of the country than the South East. Not the least of the problems that any government in this country face is that after a time they are seen as representing the South East. Many parts of the country may be reluctant to introduce charges, where there is high unemployment and too many socially disadvantaged people. Welcome though an additional source of revenue may be, the disincentive to industry and other employers would be such that not introducing charging would be a positive incentive.
	We should not blithely assume that everybody will leap into road charging with any speed. There will be considerable caution. In any event, Ministers in the other place have touched on traffic flow improvement in an area being seen before charges can be introduced--post facto. We need to consider little parts of the proposal as well as its totality.
	The Minister answered in favour of the right reverend Prelate, who I think is wrong. Nevertheless, I will study the noble Lord's response. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 163 agreed to.
	Clause 164 [Joint local charging schemes]:
	[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
	Clause 164 agreed to.
	Clause 165 [Joint local-London charging schemes]:
	[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
	Clause 165 agreed to.
	Clause 166 [Trunk road charging schemes]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith: This clause concerns the creation of trunk road charging schemes and I thought we should debate whether or not it is appropriate or useful. What will happen when a trunk road passes, as many do, through a town centre? A specific example is the A3 through Portsmouth, which is virtually the only means of accessing the Isle of Wight--which gives Portsmouth the power of ransom over the island. It would have to be a Secretary of State scheme because the A3 is a trunk road, so he should exercise extreme caution. He may find that doing what one community wants would have untold consequences for another down the road.
	Regrettably, there are many towns without bypasses. We may hear something to improve that situation within a few days. One never knows what the future holds. In this rather leaky age, there have been occasional minor hints that even I can understand. One has to be careful when talking about England and Wales (where the appropriate national authority is the Welsh Assembly), but where a trunk road passes through a number of urban centres, another problem is how to congestion charge private travellers or commercial users--who might pass through 10 town centres in a day. There are technical problems to solve before charging schemes can work in the way that the Minister wishes.
	I hope that more noble Lords will involve themselves in this aspect because side issues are fundamental to the way in which present society lives and works.

Lord Berkeley: There are many different ways of reaching the Isle of Wight and they do not all involve travelling through Portsmouth. It is clear from Clause 166 that a trunk road charging scheme can be used only if the local traffic authority agrees. If Hampshire County Council is the charging authority, presumably a scheme need not cover the whole county but could apply to only one or two towns. I considered tabling an amendment to delete subsection (2) because I am enthusiastic about trunk road charging but Clause 166 is good as it stands and I oppose its removal.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Paragraph 148 of the helpful Explanatory Notes states:
	"Clause 166 also provides that the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying charges, but allows the Secretary of State or NAW powers to specify other persons in certain circumstances through regulations."
	Unless I have got it wrong, that explanation does nothing but add to the confusion. Perhaps I have totally misunderstood it.
	I am obliged to my noble friend for speaking to the Question whether Clause 166 stand part. My forlorn hope is that someone somewhere will remember that originally roads were designed for movement. When I wallowed in the Department of Transport and vaguely suggested that from time to time, it was regarded as an old-fashioned and wholly reactionary idea that I should cast out of my mind without delay. It is still my belief--I hope that it is not entirely misconceived--that roads exist to help people to move around and are not intended primarily as parking lots.
	Highway authorities and the organisation known as the Highways Agency are apt to forget the principle that, on the whole, roads are intended to facilitate movement, and they find every possible means to obstruct movement. Almost every week I travel the road to London from the M3. I salute the inventiveness of the Highways Agency in finding new means to obstruct the traffic. It never leaves that stretch of road alone. All of the authority's most energetic and inventive minds--I do not suggest for a moment that the number at its disposal is in any way limited--are devoted to finding, with minimum effort to themselves, yet further means to create bottlenecks. When those bottlenecks have been created, they remain totally unmanned and nobody cares for them. The bottlenecks, being very obliging, stay where they are and nobody does anything about them.
	Without trying to be facetious, I ask the noble Lord to remind these bodies, in particular the Highways Agency, that they exist to help people to move around. I hope that what is sought to be done under this clause will not be used to add to the number of people whose talents and inventiveness are wholly devoted to obstructing and hindering people who wish legitimately to use the roads for movement.

Lord Whitty: I have come to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has at some point, and possibly repeatedly, been deeply scarred by the activities of the Highways Agency. I can only convey the authority's apologies to him and assure him that its practices and techniques are now directed at exactly what the noble Lord seeks; namely, to speed up maintenance and complete it as rapidly as possible and to ensure, as far as possible, the free flow of traffic. That is also the objective of this clause. We want to make sure that appropriate traffic, both economic and passenger, which has no other means of moving from A to B is able to get through.
	As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Explanatory Notes were based on the original clause numbers prior to the Grand Committee stage. I believe that the clause to which he refers is now Clause 177. No doubt the noble Lord will return to the point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests that we should remove this clause. This is a very important but limited clause. It is not a provision of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. The clause provides for two very limited circumstances in which congestion charging can be raised on the trunk road network: one relates to bridges and tunnels and the other, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concentrated, relates to those cases where part of a trunk road affects any local charging scheme. The power can be used only at the request of the local authority in order to complement its own charging scheme. That scheme will itself have been subject to a substantial period of consultation. In the case of Portsmouth--to correct my noble friend, Portsmouth is a unitary authority and therefore has highway responsibilities--the authority would be required to consult the Isle of Wight and other surrounding authorities, businesses and others within its own area. Therefore, that consultation would already have taken place.
	The power does not permit the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly, to introduce widespread charges along the whole length of the road; nor does the Secretary of State have to agree with the local authority to impose charges, if requested, to complement the scheme. Therefore, in circumstances where it seems to the Secretary of State that the scheme is detrimental to the general flow of traffic or to neighbouring authorities, he will have the right not to accede to the request.
	In general terms, however, it is important that as to those stretches of trunk road which impinge on the local authority area where major diversion would otherwise occur or the scheme would be undermined, the Secretary of State should have ability to raise charges. Therefore, this clause is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not continue to oppose it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I welcome the Minister's assurance. The noble Lord has a very pleasant manner when he is communicating good news. When he tells me that the Highways Agency is there to help movement, that is very good news. I very much hope that evidence of that fact will reach me.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it would be remarkable if in debating a Bill of this kind, there was universal agreement on the amendments. I should be wholly surprised if somebody, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not oppose the Question that the clause stand part.
	The Minister has spared me the necessity of explaining the difference in status between a city as important as Portsmouth and a county council as significant as Hampshire. The fact is that Portsmouth will be a local transport authority, which was implicit in the response of the Minister.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If he achieves nothing else, he always makes us think. His statement that roads are to facilitate movement is fundamental. That is very nearly a point on which there is a fundamental division within the Committee. One may argue about what facilitates movement; occasionally, even limited restrictions do so. Therefore, in this matter there are deep shades of grey.
	I was delighted to hear the Minister say that in considering its particular problems Portsmouth would be obliged to undertake a very wide degree of consultation. Therefore, the Minister is supportive of a group of amendments in my name which are to be debated later. The Bill provides that the local transport authority may do something. We believe that the word should be "shall", not "may". I should be satisfied that Portsmouth would consult the Isle of Wight if the Bill said that it should do so. However, the Bill does not say "shall" but "may". We shall turn to that point later, and I am delighted to have the support of the Minister for those amendments.
	We have had a very good debate. As is very often the case with clause stand part debates, the purpose of debating the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part is to be clear exactly what will be the consequences of what we seek to do here. Often, Bills are obscure in that regard.
	I do not believe that I have wasted the time of the Committee in initiating the debate and I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill.

Clause 166 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Teachers' Performance Pay: High Court Judgment

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement a Private Notice Question on teachers' pay, which has been taken today in another place.
	"Teachers' pay and conditions are set on a statutory basis by order after report by an independent review body, the School Teachers' Review Body, and consultation. In January of this year, the STRB recommended a new pay structure, including a performance threshold giving a £2,000 pay rise on 1st September 2000 and access to a higher pay scale. This will be put in place.
	"As the House will know, the Government's plan to reform the teaching profession to make sure that good teachers are paid more was first published in a Green Paper in December 1998. The standards which teachers should meet for the threshold pay increase were first published in draft in February 1999 as part of consultation on the Green Paper, Teachers--meeting the challenge of change. Wide-ranging informal consultation over the following year led to formal consultation with the STRB's statutory consultees in February this year. The STRB itself was provided with early drafts of the standards as background to its review.
	"As a result of action by the NUT, the High Court ruled on Friday 14th July that these standards were invalid because they should have been formally referred to the review body and set out in an order. The court also ruled that duties on school managers to carry out threshold assessment were unlawful because the consultation on the draft duties had been too short.
	"My right honourable friend believed that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they were about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales.
	"The written judgment of the court is not available, but as soon as it is I will decide whether or not to appeal. But the judgment did not comment on the standards themselves and did not give rise to any fundamental need to review government policy on rewarding good teachers.
	"The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today written to head teachers advising them that the deadlines for threshold applications will be changed. We have already spoken to the STRB chair and will write to him formally today.
	"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation for a radical pay improvement. All the Government have asked is that teachers do a good job in return. We intend to press on with paying good teachers more money within the correct legal framework with as little delay as possible".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Baroness has repeated, and which has been made in another place in response to a Private Notice Question, is deeply regrettable. First, the Secretary of State blames the National Union of Teachers for daring to challenge his handling of the PRP scheme. In a press release, the Secretary of State stated:
	"The NUT need to ask their leadership why they have taken legal action".
	It did so because the Secretary of State had not heeded advice from so many about the process adopted for the introduction of PRP and because of the corners which were cut by the Secretary of State in order to implement a scheme, which is, as the noble Baroness and Secretary of State know, controversial.
	Secondly, I turn to the role of civil servants and their advice to Ministers. To blame the civil servants, as Mr Blunkett has done, is disgraceful behaviour; civil servants are unable to defend themselves and must therefore be deemed guilty by the Secretary of State.
	Speaking on a radio programme, the Secretary of State said that he cannot rely on his civil servants to advise him and therefore he was going to read the judgment himself and decide himself the next steps. Does he intend to take no advice at all? If he does intend to take advice, from where will he obtain it?
	While PRP in principle is to be welcomed, the particular scheme, rushed through and now thwarted by the courts because of the Secretary of State, has not been thought through. It is excessively bureaucratic; it requires an army of external assessors; and it is supported by brain-numbing training which is an insult to professional teachers and governors. For example, many of those compelled to undertake training knew more than the trainers. They came away from the training very dissatisfied indeed.
	Much of the work has been carried out in our schools, but will it now be aborted? Do the Government intend to appeal the judgment? The Minister said that they are waiting to read the judgment, but it would be helpful to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State. Will schools be reimbursed for the time already spent on the bureaucratic process? Only today, I was in the presence of a head teacher who told me that when 68 teachers applied to go through the threshold at least two hours were spent on each application by that head teacher. Having undertaken all that work, what price is time now?
	What is the delay likely to be for those teachers whose expectations have been raised by the Secretary of State only to be dashed by his arrogant disregard for the proper processes? Schools and teachers should not be made to pay the price for this fiasco.
	The Statement indicates:
	"My right honourable friend believes that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they are about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales".
	They are about pay. Indeed, the DfEE's press release states:
	"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation to radically improve their pay".
	The whole PRP issue related to the standards necessary to trigger pay awards. The suggestion that the standards are not about pay, and to give that as an excuse for failing to follow the proper process, is unacceptable.
	There is no doubt that the present situation is very frustrating for schools, teachers and governors. However, make no mistake about it, the blame lies with the Secretary of State.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I believe that the Secretary of State must be nai ve if he thought that the proposals were about standards of teaching and not about pay structures and scales. After all that has been said in this House about performance-related pay, it was clear that they were about pay as well as about standards of teaching.
	In many senses, this is a victory for parliamentary democracy as well as for the courts. As Mr Justice Jackson made clear, the Secretary of State, in imposing threshold standards for performance-related pay, bypassed the School Teachers' Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As the judge said, Parliament required that any significant contractual powers are subject to the scrutiny of an independent body; namely, the School Teachers' Review Body. The Secretary of State evaded that scrutiny. Furthermore, at the start the Welsh Assembly wanted to remove pupils' performance as a criterion for the teachers' assessment. It will now have its way unless the Secretary of State amends the existing legislation and introduces new statutes.
	The real question is: why did not the DfEE and the Secretary of State scrutinise the court's decision in March, when it was decided that there were sufficient grounds for a judicial review with a view to withdrawing the flawed order relating to school teachers' pay, and undertake proper consultation rather than allow the review to drag on until July?
	My second question returns to an issue raised many times by the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister knows well, we opposed the proposals for performance related pay because we did not believe that a school environment was appropriate for such a system. Essentially, teachers work as a team. The proposals would have introduced considerable extra administrative burdens on head teachers, who are already overloaded with bureaucracy, and would have required teacher to inform upon teacher with the risk of setting one member of staff against another within the team. We also opposed them because we felt, and said at the time, that four days of formal consultation was too short for so important a measure.
	Therefore, my second question is: why did the Secretary of State not heed the voices not only of the Liberal Democrats but of over 70 Members of Parliament of all the main parties who signed an Early Day Motion in the other place calling on the Secretary of State to carry out proper consultation with teachers and to allow Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to debate such significant changes?
	Lastly, I bring to your Lordships' attention the chaos that has now been caused. With less than a week to go before the end of term, teachers do not know where they are. I have many teacher friends who spent a whole weekend filling out the threshold forms. They do not know where they will stand when they return to school in September. Similarly, heads and governors have also had to spend a great deal of time deciding how to respond to them. I gather from the Statement that the matter is now on hold and that the Secretary of State is writing to the School Teachers' Review Body. However, how long will it be before teachers know whether they will receive their threshold payments?
	Finally, I echo the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Why has the Secretary of State blamed officials when, in his summing up, the judge made it clear that, given the pace and pressure of changes imposed by the Secretary of State at the moment, mistakes were bound to occur?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by clearing up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp--a point raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State takes full responsibility for what happens. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked from whom the Secretary of State takes advice. He takes advice from many different quarters: from officials, legal advisers, special advisers and representatives of the teaching profession.
	I am dismayed that the Liberal Democrats, and, I believe, the Conservative Party, too, do not accept the desirability of moving towards a pay system in which good teachers are rewarded fully for what they do by passing over a threshold and receiving an increase of £2,000. The noble Baroness wants to intervene, but perhaps I may say that the Opposition have attempted to block many of the proposals, have opposed them and have got into bed with the NUT over them.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will read what I said. I said that PRP is welcome. We criticised the particular system and the bureaucratic nature of it. However, we have always said that PRP is welcome as a system of rewarding good work in classrooms.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Baroness was so in favour of it, I wonder why she did not introduce it when she was in government. I suggest that that points to a small failure on her part and that of her party when in government.
	Perhaps I may turn to some of the other questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was critical of the training provided for head teachers in support of their work in carrying out assessments of teachers for the purpose of performance-related pay. At the May training events, 94 per cent of participants were satisfied or more than satisfied with the quality of the training they received, and an average of 91 per cent similarly were satisfied with the follow-up events. On the basis not of anecdote but of a proper sampling of the teachers concerned, that shows that they welcomed the training, were appreciative of it and considered it to be good.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government will appeal. As I implied in my response to the PNQ, the Government have not yet seen the written judgment and cannot make a decision until they have had the opportunity to do so.
	The noble Baroness asked about the likely delay so far as concerns teachers. The Government regret the delay just as much as the noble Baroness. Until the issues raised by the court case have been resolved, it is impossible to say exactly how long the delay will be. However, I can say--and I believe that it will be reassuring to the many teachers who have applied to go over the threshold--that when decisions eventually are made about those who are successful, their pay will be backdated to 1st September.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the time spent on the applications and on their consideration by head teachers would be wasted. The Government very much hope that that will not be the case. If the threshold standards are not changed, we can proceed on the same basis. If the standards are changed, the Secretary of State will of course have to reconsider the whole position.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the National Assembly for Wales. Perhaps I may make it clear that this is not a devolved matter. Therefore, the National Assembly for Wales does not have a remit in this particular area, although the Welsh Ministers responsible are consulted. The Government do not consider that it should be a devolved matter. They believe that the threshold standards should be the same because there is a considerable amount of movement by teachers across the border between Wales and England. It would be undesirable for that movement to be in any way constrained.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, am I right in saying that if the Secretary of State were to use the 1986 Act, this would be a matter for devolution to Wales? It is a question of whether he uses the 1986 Act or the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 for appraisal. If he uses the latter, I gather that it would not be a matter for devolution. However, if he used the former, I believe that it would be.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when Welsh devolution was debated and agreed in both Houses of Parliament, it was made absolutely clear that this would not be a devolved matter.
	Perhaps I may return to the noble Baroness's point regarding the grounds for judicial review in March. When the NUT originally applied for judicial review, it was not in relation to the matter of threshold standards. That subject did not come into play until the last week of June. Therefore, the issue was introduced into the court case by the NUT only recently.
	I believe that I have now answered the specific questions raised by both noble Baronesses. However, I make absolutely clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week to set out exactly what they now need to do. Clearly the date by which they must complete the assessments will be put back. We have also made it clear that we shall provide them with further information and updates on the DfEE's website.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a private school and, therefore, as an employer of teachers. Is it not unsatisfactory that, as was made clear by the Minister, everyone is now left in a state of limbo because no one knows what will happen next?
	The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week. Does that mean that he will receive the written judgment before the end of the week? Will it be made widely available? If it is available in time for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to the teaching profession and to head teachers, might it not have been possible to have got hold of it sooner and made it available to Parliament now?
	The Minister has also said that the application deadline will be changed. Will she at least tell us the new date for applications?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is for the courts to make the written judgment available. I understand that it is likely to be available in the very near future. The Government will make a decision on whether to appeal by Thursday, which is the deadline. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to ensure that all head teachers receive a letter before the end of term, so it will have to go out tonight or tomorrow, which means that it will be impossible for him to give any details in that letter about his decision on an appeal. As I have said, head teachers will be updated through the department's website.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's assurance about backdating the pay award when matters are settled. Over the weekend I met two teachers who intend to retire during the coming year. Their pension entitlement will be affected by whether they get the money. It would be helpful if it was made clear that their pensions will not be threatened.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that teachers who go through the appraisal successfully will have their pay addition backdated to 1st September. Any teacher who is likely to retire will not suffer in any way in terms of their pension.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, under what rules does the Secretary of State continue in office? Surely he has disqualified himself by all normal standards, having publicly declared the advice that he received in confidence from his civil servants.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I utterly refute that suggestion. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been one of the most successful holders of that office for many years. He has pushed through a remarkable range of reforms to improve standards in our schools and to ensure that lifelong learning becomes a reality. As I said earlier, he accepts full responsibility for what has happened.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has said that the pay will be backdated to 1st September. Can she assure us that the Secretary of State has sound advice that that will be legal, whatever the outcome? Teachers would like to know.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blatch about whether schools will be repaid for all the work that they have done on the process?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the work is part of the responsibility of head teachers. There is no need to repay them for what that they have done, because they have accepted that appraisal is part of their job and have been doing it for some years. In no sense would it be appropriate to repay schools. Moreover, we hope that most of the work that they have done will not be affected, because we hope that the standards will be accepted. There was a great deal of consultation about them and they have largely been accepted in the teaching profession.

Transport Bill

House again in Committee (on Recommitment).
	[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: I was told that I was expected to be on at 3.30 p.m. and had to wait here for a whole hour. Given that my noble friends dealing with the Bill think that they are due to be out of the Chamber for 40 minutes, I wonder whether the House agrees that it would be appropriate to adjourn for a few minutes until they arrive.

Noble Lords: Here he is.

Clause 167 [Charging schemes to be made by order]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 206:
	Page 100, line 23, leave out ("any of").

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Committee. I was caught out by the speed with which the Minister dealt with her education Statement. It was unforgivable of me.
	Curiously enough, the amendment is designed to help the Government. Clause 167(2) deals with the variation or revocation of charging schemes. It says:
	"The charging authority or the charging authorities (acting jointly) may by order vary a charging scheme under this Part and the charging authority or any of the charging authorities may by order revoke such a scheme".
	It is entirely proper that the agreement of all the authorities concerned is needed before a scheme is brought in. However, it appears that any single participating authority could unilaterally revoke it. That is rather peculiar and cannot be right. If a scheme has to be brought in by joint effort, it cannot be correct that any of the charging authorities can revoke it. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is at least a point to our amendment that he could accept. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I am always grateful to the noble Lord when he is helpful. I understand what he is driving at. The problem is that the amendment would lead to the opposite situation, because it would require all local authorities involved to agree before a joint scheme could be revoked. That would make it impossible for a single authority to decide that it was no longer in its own interests to participate.
	Our general approach has been to avoid having too many barriers for authorities that decide to revoke a charging scheme. Therefore, the consequence of that approach is that a single authority would have the right to revoke its part of that scheme.
	The noble Lord is concerned that the right of a single authority in a joint scheme may be used precipitately as a result of this clause. There will be plenty of other safeguards to ensure that that will not happen. In practice, a scheme would not be agreed or approved unless there was a clear period of notice before any of the participating authorities could withdraw from a joint scheme. No doubt there would be also a number of other contractual arrangements in relation to the operation of the scheme which all participating authorities would have to consider.
	Therefore, although the noble Lord's amendment appears to be aimed at stability, in fact the nature of the schemes will provide a fair degree of stability. The requirement that all authorities participating would jointly have to agree the revocation is too onerous and would reduce the flexibility and accountability of the individual local authorities concerned. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment despite the fact that I recognise his good motives in that regard and he points to a problem. However, this amendment creates another problem.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are dealing with a question of what I can only describe as relative problems. But what the Minister has not said in his reply is that the individual local authority which is participating in a scheme may withdraw from the scheme in relation to its own territory. The Bill says that it can revoke a scheme.
	I accept that there will be a great number of safeguards. Obviously, any joint scheme will have fairly tight contractual arrangements, such as periods of notice and so on. I accept that there will be a degree of stability. But we need to be extremely careful about the words on the face of the Bill. I can understand an authority in a joint scheme being able to revoke a scheme in relation to its own area so that what was formerly a joint scheme would no longer apply in that area. The Minister says that if a transport authority which is part of a joint scheme wishes to withdraw, the whole scheme will go. That is beginning to fly in the face of the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, about the intended disincentive effect of the existence of those charges. These are supposed to be matters of national significance, with the purpose being to provide a major disincentive to all traffic permanently and for ever. But here, a local transport authority may revoke a scheme because it does not like it. Therefore, that impact will immediately be lost.
	It seems to me that that is an inconsistency in the Government's position as between one amendment and another, although it is not relevant to this amendment. I shall study what the Minister said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 167 agreed to.
	Clause 168 agreed to.
	Clause 169 [Charging schemes: consultation and inquiries]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 207:
	Page 101, line 23, leave out ("may at any time") and insert ("shall").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 207 is grouped with a large number of other amendments. Paradoxically, the Minister has already spoken to this amendment which makes mandatory consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme.
	We have had this debate on many occasions. I am sure that we shall continue to have it. In his reply, the Minister will no doubt say, as he has done before, that in legislation, the word "may" is normally used and for "may" read "shall". But if one were to refer to the dictionary, "may" does not mean "shall". It is as simple as that.
	When these schemes are being introduced, it is important that the obligation to consult is of the widest and, indeed, that obligation should be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
	Other amendments in this group seek to ensure that the people who are consulted are "interested" people. The Bill provides something about consulting such other people as the local transport authority considers desirable. It should be "such other interested people" who are desirable. It should not be those whom the local transport authority considers desirable but rather those who are interested or their representatives. Likewise, there will always be affected organisations; for example, those interested in the transport organisations or representatives of business and commerce. They should be consulted. Such matters should be on the face of the Bill.
	Wrapped up within this group of amendments is another amendment which is highly desirable. The amendment requires the local transport authority, when it is undertaking consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme, to introduce a cost-benefit analysis; in other words, to show to the local community that it will receive something back for the money which it is being forced to contribute. That is not at all unreasonable. It will be an extremely useful discipline for the local transport authority to have to stop and think with care and in detail what it will do with the funds which it is extracting from its community or, indeed, from visitors or people simply passing through who will be likely to be caught.
	These amendments are repeated in relation to the workplace parking levy. The same arguments hold good in relation to that. If we are to have these schemes, it seems to me that they must be very well thought through in the first instance and then very well explained and acceptable to the community. If they are not, all that will happen is that there will be a political revolution come the next local elections and somebody will be brought in who will do something different. That is the nature of politics. The comparison between these charges and levies and the poll tax has been made.
	It may well be that when those charges and levies are in place at some point in the future, they will have a similar impact. I should not go so far as to say that that is certain, but it is certain that there will be extremely negative reactions to the introduction of those charges if the consultation process is weak--under the Bill, there is potential for that--and if, more importantly, the community cannot see that it will gain, rather than lose, as a consequence. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend makes an extremely good point. It is far from my intention to suggest that the whole of officialdom is high-handed, arrogant and rude. I really do not make that suggestion. However, undoubtedly parts of it suffer from certain defects. That being the case, I think it unwise to use the words "may at any time". In the unlikely event that the charging authority is not naturally good mannered or considerate of the rights of others, it should be obliged to consult. My noble friend is right. He has done a good service to the Committee in making the point by moving the amendment. I hope that the Government will at least give it serious thought, if they do not decide to accept it. I can see no reason why they should not do the latter.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263A in this grouping. The measures in Part III will need all the support they can get when they come to fruition. Much still has to be done to integrate transport policy with the workplace. Both limbs of the measures in Part III have much to do with the workplace, which is the main cause of peak period congestion, and we now have the proposal for a parking charge.
	I would go only some of the way with noble Lords opposite in predicting revolution as a result of the Bill coming on to the statute book, either for national government or local government. There will certainly be much debate in the workplace when the Bill comes to fruition. Amendment No. 263A is connected to Amendment No. 263B, which has been moved to a different part of the grouping and to which I shall speak later. It is important that we have reassurance on the face of the Bill that employers will be consulted. That, in turn, will act as a stimulus to employers to draft their own green transport plans, which I shall come to later.

Lord Berkeley: I rise briefly to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea on Amendment No. 263A. I support everything he said. Perhaps I may add that I am pleased to have received a briefing from the Confederation of British Industry which states that, in principle, it supports the scheme. That is significant.
	The CBI has attached to its support a number of conditions. The main one in connection with this amendment is that it would prefer to see the need for consultation to be a statutory requirement. If it is not, it would like to see the Bill accompanied by statutory guidance as to how consultation can be achieved. We spend a great deal of time on this and other Bills talking about consultation, and the discussion can sometimes become ethereal. However, all noble Lords who have spoken so far in Committee have stated that it is a practical necessity to get ownership of this scheme for those who will be affected by it. I am not so frightened. I believe that if it is explained properly, many people will support it and see the benefits which will come to them. However, I believe that, at the very least, statutory guidance should be issued so that there is consistency of consultation where such schemes are proposed.

Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that we believe that effective consultation will be central to the charging or levy scheme at local level. The Government attach considerable importance to that. Indeed, as we said in our response to Breaking the Logjam, consultation with local people and businesses will be one of the core elements of any local scheme before it is approved by the Secretary of State. It is clear that consultation is a major part of that process.
	Moreover, we have emphasised that charging schemes should support the objectives of a local authority's local transport plan, which is subject to extensive consultation. Every road user or workplace parking scheme will contain much detail and have a direct impact on the interests of many sections of the community. It must, therefore, be subject to a separate and detailed process of public scrutiny and consultation.
	Furthermore, Clause 169 provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to direct a charging or licensing authority to undertake further consultation if the appropriate national authority deems that the original consultation was insufficient.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated, in providing for such consultation we have used the normal terminology "may". I see no good reason to change that. To ensure that that is turned into full and effective consultation we shall issue guidance. In due course, regulations will be issued using the powers in Clause 167(3). We shall list a number of consultees, the core of which will be similar to those for traffic orders. It will include additions, such as chief police officers, district councils in two-tier authorities, RDAs, national parks authorities and so forth, where appropriate.
	For workplace parking schemes, which do not affect such a wide group of people, a simpler list of statutory consultees will be more appropriate. It will include, for example, neighbouring authorities likely to be affected and a requirement to consult and actively involve local people, local employers, local trade unions, transport operators, transport users, representative groups--for example those for the disabled--and such organisations as are appropriate in the locality. In some cases that would require consultation with other public bodies. The guidance will clearly spell out the need to consult widely and meet the objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others.
	Amendment No. 263A was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Berkeley. The amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to draw up model guidelines on consultation with employers, along the lines the CBI would want. I assure my noble friends that we fully intend to issue such guidance. At present, through our Charging Development Partnership, we are working closely with those local authorities which have it in mind to introduce such schemes. We shall need to learn from that partnership and build on the experience it has encountered in issuing and developing guidance.
	In the mean time, every charging scheme will need the approval of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly and will therefore be subject to careful scrutiny before it starts. I assure the Committee that we do not intend to approve schemes unless there has been appropriate consultation with people and businesses.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also drew attention to Amendments Nos. 210 and 242 on cost-benefit analysis. Again, we shall issue guidance to authorities on the way in which they should assess the likely impact of the scheme. That will be slightly wider than traditional cost-benefit analysis. They will need to look at the benefits to the community as a whole and the impact on the environment. However, it must be a robust assessment of the impact of that scheme.
	On that front and on the consultation front I hope that my assurances have convinced Members of the Committee that the Bill as it stands and the regulations which will follow meet all their objectives in this regard. I hope, therefore, that they do not see the need to move their amendments.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to detain the Committee. However, it seems odd to give an authority permission to consult. Surely authorities do not need permission to consult. They should be put under a duty to consult. In replying to the amendment, the Minister voiced unexceptionable sentiments. I agree with almost every word he said. I would have thought that almost the whole tenor of his argument would have led to an acceptance of this sensible and modest amendment, which is not even lengthy; it is short and inserts one single word: "shall" consult instead of "may" consult. It is perfectly sensible.
	I hope that the Minister will not think that we, on this side of the Committee, are being obstinate. I hope that he will concede that there may be a point here. Merely to permit an authority to consult is meaningless. I do not understand its value. The Minister said that consultation is a major part of the process. So why not make it obligatory? I fail to understand that. I do not know how many times the noble Lord used the word "guidance", but he must understand--he is a modest and reasonable man--that government guidance is not always what the Opposition look for or are content with.
	I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and not simply accept the advice of his officials that the Bill is immaculate and does not need any change.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend Lord Peyton kindly argued in support of what I too felt was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Paradoxically, the Minister agreed with us. But he said that he would not do anything about it; he would deal with it in other ways. The Minister says that "may" means "must", that authorities will have to consult, and that there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. I find that difficult to understand.
	My noble friend Lord Peyton also raised the question of the status of guidance. We have already debated in the course of this Bill the status of statutory guidance, particularly guidance which others are obliged to take note of. The fact is that statutory guidance is about 10 steps away from regulation. At least regulation receives the merest margin of parliamentary supervision; statutory guidance receives none.
	There is always consultation as to the content of guidance. That consultation takes into account lots of views. But the guidance then produces what the Minister first thought of. It may occasionally be adjusted, but only because the Government originally intended to adjust it.
	A constitutional issue arises here. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his support in an amendment which runs parallel to mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is wide agreement as to the principles of these amendments. The Minister says that he agrees with the principles but does not intend to do anything. I shall study with care exactly how he managed to justify that paradox. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 211:
	Page 101, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This group of amendments seeks to make compulsory the setting up of an inquiry before a charging scheme is introduced, with a parallel series of amendments in relation to workplace parking. More importantly, in some ways, they seek to appoint an independent person as the chairman of such an inquiry.
	In a sense, these amendments follow on naturally from the previous group so I need not take up too much time on them. Once again, the wording of the Bill is "may", and I have no doubt that the Minister will say it means "must". So although those affected by the clause "must", the Bill will say "may". I find that extremely odd.
	Again, it is important for the question of acceptance that there should be an inquiry in relation to those schemes. So "may" should be "must" and undoubtedly will be when the Minister concludes his remarks. Even more importantly, another amendment in this group seeks to ensure that the person appointed to chair the inquiry is independent. Unfortunately, if that were not the case, the integrity of the inquiry would be called into question and that would not be in anybody's interest. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 are included in this group. In both cases the amendments substitute a requirement on appropriate national authorities to give directions to local authorities to re-examine, vary or revoke a scheme rather than themselves carrying out an inquiry.
	Although I do not always take seriously this quibbling about words, nevertheless when the Minister says "may" means "must" it gives greater weight to my remarks. Apparently, the provision now means that the appropriate national authority "must" cause an inquiry to be held in relation to a charging scheme; and that must be nonsense. After all, the way in which these schemes are set up is extremely detailed in terms of their prescription. Regulations for both kinds of levy to cover exemptions and enforcements are enabled by the Bill; the content of each scheme is described in some detail on the face of the Bill; and the appropriate national authority can, by regulation, prescribe the nature and content of the orders under which the schemes can be produced.
	Altogether it is a pretty prescriptive control for a locally determined scheme. My question therefore is: why might the appropriate national authority feel that it should step in and hold an inquiry at a time when a scheme is being brought into effect? Why cannot the local authority simply be instructed to think again about its scheme?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Within this group it will be generally recognised that the authors of Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 251 and 252 on the one hand and 214 and 254 on the other cannot both be right; they both argue strongly in opposite directions.
	There is no question here that "may" equals "shall". It is intended that the requirement to hold a public inquiry should be only in appropriate cases. Holding a public inquiry before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced may well be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to hold an inquiry if there is a significant variation to a scheme. It may even be appropriate to hold an inquiry into the revocation of a scheme. But it cannot be sensible to make public inquiries compulsory in all circumstances for all schemes and for any change to each and every scheme, which is what the Conservative amendments seek.
	In addition, the amendments would remove the ability of charging and licensing authorities to fine tune schemes--in other words, to make minor changes--or to revoke schemes quickly. So although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled his amendments, they would not be helpful or beneficial.
	However, I would not want the Committee to feel that we do not attach considerable importance to proper and effective scrutiny of the details of individual schemes. We have just debated our commitment to full and effective consultation. That is why we have parallel provisions in the Bill dealing with inquiries. Clause 169(2)(a) gives charging authorities the power to hold an inquiry when they deem it necessary, and we will issue guidance on that matter. Clause 169(4)(a) provides the appropriate national authority with the power to direct a charging authority to hold a public inquiry if it feels that this is appropriate. There are identical provisions in Chapter II dealing with the workplace parking levy.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to hear that we are in agreement about Amendments Nos. 213 and 253. But while we agree with what he is seeking to achieve, I advise the noble Lord not to smile too soon. We do not believe that it is necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill because the consequence of any inquiry that failed to meet this criterion would be vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts. Nevertheless, I reiterate our belief and intention that inquiries should be run by suitably qualified people who are independent.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to see unnecessary delays in the introduction of schemes. But the power to require an inquiry to be held into the establishment or variation of a scheme is an important reserve power that may be needed if local consultations have not been adequate to safeguard the interests of the local community. The power proposed by the amendments to require the re-examination of specific aspects of a charging scheme is already available to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales through the process of scheme approval.
	If we made the amendments, they would also have the unintended effect of giving the appropriate national authority the power to prevent a local authority revoking its charging scheme. As drafted, the power to direct that an inquiry should be held applies only to the introduction and variation of a scheme, not to its revocation. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that authorities should not be tied into schemes without the option to revoke them immediately if they wish to do so. We should not want to see a national authority preventing a local authority terminating a scheme by continuously questioning the revocation order. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee, coming at us from both sides, will feel that it is unnecessary to press these amendments.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like gently to point out that I am not under any obligation whatever to agree with my colleagues who sit further along on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, we speak for ourselves and not for anyone else.
	I have learnt something today; namely, that the word "may" means "shall" in Clause 169(2), but that "may" means "may" in Clause 169(4). So we have at least got further down the road as regards the drafting of Bills. I shall not chop logic any more with the Minister because he is probably rather better at it than I am. I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I cannot recall the appropriate quote from the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I have the feeling that there is one there somewhere, if only I could remember it! However, I wish to focus on a point made by the Minister. He said that, if an inquiry were established without an independent chairman, it might be open to successful challenge in court. The noble Lord is perfectly right. If we do not stipulate that the chairman should be independent and a local authority makes such a mistake, that would be the inevitable result. It is precisely because I thought that we should avoid the waste of time and money that would be involved in such a case that it seemed to me desirable to put such a provision on the face of the Bill.
	Anyone who stops and thinks for only a short while will realise that there have been a number of occasions when local authorities have managed to get themselves into a procedural muddle. They have been taken to court and it has caused a great deal of vexation. Part of the purpose of legislation is undoubtedly to try to avoid such situations arising. If we achieve that aim by the simple addition of a few words that actually cost nothing--except, perhaps, a minor deflation of the Government's ego--I really do not see why we should not do so.
	We find ourselves in a rather strange situation. I shall study the Minister's response because we are dealing here with quite a few amendments. However, it seems to me that this may well be a issue to which we shall return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 212 to 219 not moved.]
	Clause 169 agreed to.
	Clause 170 [Matters to be dealt with in charging schemes]:

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 220:
	Page 102, line 25, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section the class of vehicle should be defined as a powered vehicle with three or more wheels").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Among other things, Clause 170 deals with the classes of motor vehicles in respect of which charges are imposed, as part of the matters to be considered in charging schemes. Our amendment provides that such vehicles must have more than three wheels. That sounds rather curious, but the object of the exercise is to tease out the Government's feelings about motorcycles.
	Obviously, the object of road congestion charging schemes is to reduce congestion, but motorcycles contribute to reducing road congestion. The man, or commuter, on a motorcycle takes up far less room than someone driving a car. Therefore, it seems reasonable to hope and expect that motorcycles are either excluded altogether from the category of vehicles that should be charged or, alternatively, if they are included, they should be charged at a lower level. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: As a practising motorcyclist, and one of long standing, perhaps I may amplify what my noble friend has just said. From my personal experience of riding my motorcycle in various countries, there is no charging system that does not distinguish between four-wheeled vehicles and those with two or three wheels. Anyone who travels on a tolling autoroute in France, along an autobahn or on to an autostrada will find that there are reduced charges for motorcycles. That indicates the difference in terms of the wear and tear, pollution or anything else that is taken into account in order to assess the kind of charges that should be levied. It is an indication that the differences between the four-wheeled vehicle--whether it be a van, a lorry or a car--and two or three-wheeled vehicles are recognised.
	This country has a long history of motorcycle manufacture and use. After all, the motorcycle was almost, but not quite, pioneered in this country. We made a significant industrial contribution to the design and manufacture of motorcycles to the extent that, pre-1960, we were probably the major manufacturer of machines for pleasure, for commuting and for motor sport. With that background, it is rather curious that there is now an equivocal attitude at local authority level to motorcycles. The way in which motorcycles are treated for the purpose of parking, which was discussed under another part of the Bill, is extremely uneven. That applies not only within the London area but generally throughout the United Kingdom.
	In the transport plans of various local authorities no distinction is made between motorcycles and other forms of vehicle in terms of the pollution that they are alleged to produce or, indeed, as regards the wear and tear, the costs to taxpayers and the causes of congestion. Motorcycles cause far less pollution and congestion than other vehicles. The Bill as drafted will not encourage local authorities to take a more rational view of that problem.
	I am sure noble Lords will remember that the Budget of March 1999 provided tax relief for motorcycles used for commuting as they were regarded as a green form of commuting. Therefore, there is a clear recognition that motorcycles and scooters comprise a different class of vehicle in terms of assessing charging schemes.
	As my noble friend said, this is a probing amendment on which it would be useful to hear the Government's views. Thus far the Government have made some encouraging comments about motorcycles. The number of motorcycles and scooters on our roads has grown immeasurably over the past three years. My noble friend talked of a man on a motorcycle. However, current registrations show that more women are applying for motorcycle licences.
	Noble Lords may not have used the facility themselves, but there are good motorcycle taxi facilities available. I am told by fellow motorcyclists with whom I chat when waiting at a red light that it is largely women who use those taxi services. They recognise that they are the best way to get to airports or to meetings. Women now form an important part of the motorcycling community. They complain most vociferously about the uneven and unreasonable--as it is perceived--view of some local authorities which bracket together the larger, more polluting vehicles and motorcycles.
	As I say, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether the Government distinguish between motorcycles, scooters and other vehicles in this regard. That would enormously encourage those who have tabled the amendment and the expanding group of people of all ages who use motorcycles. I do not say that they use them for pleasure because in this Anglo-Saxon environment in which we live I notice that pleasure is not heavily featured in the Transport Bill when we talk about cars. I can well understand that, as there is not much pleasure in driving a car. However, motorcycles are also ridden for pleasure. That is recognised in most countries. However, in this country, people who do not enjoy driving cars and becoming caught up in congestion take a rather dim view of people who get through the traffic and enjoy themselves. However, that should not distract one from taking a reasonable and fair-minded view of the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know which cruel person allocated this amendment to me for a response. On a previous occasion in Committee I made it clear that I am frightened of bikers. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned scooters. Forty years ago I used to ride a scooter. I was frightened as much of myself as of anyone else, particularly when I fell off, as I frequently did.
	Motor vehicles, as defined in Clause 197(1), already exclude electrically assisted pedal cycles and other forms of unpowered modes of transport. This leaves us with the question of whether it is right, as the amendment suggests, that the Bill should automatically exclude all powered two wheelers--that is, motorbikes and scooters--from charges in all circumstances. I am not convinced that this would be the right way to proceed.
	We addressed this matter in our consultation paper Breaking the Logjam. We sought people's views on the merits of a national exemption for motorcycles from road user charges. Over 60 per cent of respondents thought that there should not be a national exemption. Many suggested that the matter should be left to local discretion. We recognise the merits of an exemption from charges for motorcycles. It could overcome a number of practical problems that might be encountered if they were subject to road user charges.
	However, I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are discussing congestion charging. There are issues of pollution and also of noise pollution. I do not think motorcycles would be regarded favourably in terms of noise pollution. However, we are principally discussing congestion. It is undoubtedly the case that a two-wheeled vehicle takes up less horizontal road space than a four-wheeled vehicle, or even a three-wheeled vehicle such as a Reliant Robin or a motorcycle with a sidecar. A charging authority might decide that it is appropriate to charge motorcycles if they contribute to local congestion problems.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to motorways in other countries. However, in the centre of Rome or Bologna the congestion is caused almost entirely by two-wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. The fact that it will be open to charging authorities to charge motorcycles at a reduced rate on the basis that two wheels cause less of a congestion problem than four wheels is a perfectly rational solution. If that is what the noble Viscount seeks, we seek the same thing. We believe that it is right to leave local authorities with the discretion to include powered two wheelers within a charging scheme. However, we shall ensure that local authorities carefully consider the case for and against including motorcycles in any charging scheme.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that full and, I think, largely satisfactory reply. I shall read what the Minister has said but, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 221:
	Page 102, line 27, at end insert ("for ten years or").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are grouped together. They seek to change the psychology of this part of the Bill. Clause 170 is concerned with the contents of charging schemes. Clause 170(1)(e) states that a charging scheme must,
	"state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in force indefinitely and, if it is not to remain in force indefinitely, the period for which it is to remain in force".
	I leave aside the earlier argument proposed; namely, that the purpose of the charges is to provide a permanent disincentive for people to drive. Clearly, this part of the Bill at any rate, is not consistent with that.
	Amendment No. 220 seeks to amend Clause 170(1)(e) to read,
	"state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in force for ten years or indefinitely".
	The hypothecation period presently provided in the Bill is 10 years. I do not see why a local transport authority should have to bear the responsibility for introducing a tax which may subsequently become a national tax. In my view, that does not accord with the principles of open and honest taxation.
	The psychology of the Bill at this point would be improved if the tax--and it is a tax--was to run initially for the period of its hypothecation to the benefit of the local community. If subsequent events necessitated a change--or if a government legislated to bring it about, which would be the open way of doing it--it could perhaps become a permanent charge. The principle of permanence is already eroded by the wording of the Bill--I am delighted about that--but we should say that these are local taxes for local use at the very least. It is important to get the psychology right.
	I am a great admirer of everyone involved in local government but, at the moment, local transport authorities may not think sufficiently carefully about this matter. They may not think sufficiently carefully about it in any event, but they would be more likely to think about it if the emphasis of this small part of the Bill were to be altered. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I should first say a word about hypothecation, which is a little more complicated than the noble Lord implied. Each scheme starting in the 10 years following the commencement of these powers will be guaranteed at least 10 years of hypothecation. So, if a scheme started nine years from now, hypothecation would continue until 19 years from now. We would then have a general review after 10 years. The Secretary of State may, if he wishes, agree a longer period of hypothecation for an individual scheme at the outset. Every scheme will have established at the outset the exact period of hypothecation that it is guaranteed, and an authority could, of course, decide to link the length of the scheme to that.
	As far as I can see, there is no risk whatever of what the noble Lord suggested--that is, that a scheme might run out of hypothecation and could not be brought to an end if the authority so wished. The Bill allows that orders of indefinite length may be revoked at any time if the charging authority so wishes.
	Having got that out of the way, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. The amendments seek to require that scheme orders must be either indefinite or of 10 years' duration. Schemes can be indefinite or of 10 years duration now; the amendments would stop them being for any finite period other than 10 years. That could be too restrictive. An authority may decide to introduce an order initially for a year, with the continuation of the scheme being subject to review and the remaking of the order; or it might decide that an order of five years would be right to tie it into the timetable of a local transport plan.
	Having removed the fear of a scheme which may run out of hypothecation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will feel that the flexibility provided in the Bill is better than the position proposed in his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are constantly dealing with what lies behind the Bill rather than what lies in the Bill. None the less, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response, which gives me considerable cause for hope. I shall study his words with care. It may be that there are particular aspects of what he said that I shall wish to explore further at a later stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 223:
	Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and
	(f) state whether the charging scheme will cease in the event that the monies provided annually by government to local government for highways and transport purposes (as exemplified in the annual Revenue Support Grant negotiations) are reduced year on year for more than one year").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 223--which I am sure is hopelessly inadequately worded--seeks to give us the opportunity to explore a different aspect of what is now happening in relation to funding as a result of the introduction of these additional taxes--that is, the question of additionality.
	Many people think that hypothecation is the essential building block to making this work. But if we were to have a hypothecated source of revenue which allowed the Government to withdraw other available funding--so that one was almost in a position of a drug addict having his addiction forced on him by the possibility of the withdrawal of treatment--we would not be in a very happy situation.
	I thought quite hard about how I could table an amendment to bring about that which I wish to ensure--that is, that normal funding will carry on as one would normally expect it to do. I am quite prepared to admit that my wording is not adequate to achieve that purpose--as no doubt the Minister will agree, whatever else he says when he responds to the amendment. In any event, it is far too risky; inevitably as between one transport authority and another, over years their needs will go up and down, as will funding, and my amendment does not permit funding to go down. I admit therefore that we could have a little difficulty.
	However, I want to get the principle of additionality to local government generally at the very least debated; indeed, if I could, I should like to get it acknowledged on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say that I am a very untrusting kind of bloke and that I have a suspicious nature. I accept the charge. Those of us who have spent our lives in local government, very regrettably, end up with that as a part of our character. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, but it is a fact of life. The important point is that we need somehow to assure those who will be responsible for introducing these charges that they will mean an additional gain to their communities. Without that, we will be in some difficulty.
	We have spoken about the question of the guidance. I mention en passant that the psychology of the guidance could also mean that the Government could use its base funding as a tool--heaven help us--to persuade authorities to introduce charges. It has happened before from central government to local government by the simple device of central government saying "You are not introducing these charges; you are not doing what we want; therefore we shall reduce your funds". It has happened to local government from central government as bluntly as that. That is not a proper way to carry on.
	It was with all these thoughts in mind that I tabled the amendment. If the Minister can give me concrete assurances on the principle I am trying to get across, it may be that I shall be happier. It is an extremely difficult area, as I am the first to acknowledge. I look forward to the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Undoubtedly there is a danger--we have seen it in local government, as the noble Lord said, and in art funding following the creation of the lottery fund--that when there is specific support for a particular item of expenditure governments, no matter what they say, sometimes fall down in maintaining their original programmes of support for that item of expenditure. There is a rather disagreeable reality behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should like whatever reassurance the Minister can give us that the Government will not go down that road. It would be dangerous for local government to depend on congestion charging for funding everything it wants to do in the field of transport.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we all have a shared and understandable apprehension about this matter. In the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not confess to more suspicion in these matters. I entirely agree that the revenues from new charges must be additional to existing funding and that this must be clear for all to see. We also have to recognise that that will be crucial to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. For the record, I repeat the Government's promise that the net proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving local transport.
	It was with the issue of additionality in mind that Schedule 12 was drafted to require charging and licensing authorities to establish a separate account for the income and expenditure from charging schemes. That account must be published annually. That will guarantee transparency by making it clear to local people and businesses how much money is being raised through charging and how that money is being spent. That will, we hope, help to demonstrate that the revenues raised through the new charges are indeed additional to a local authority's revenue support grant and other grants paid by central government to local government.
	Returning to the noble Lord's amendment, I would emphasise that we have been careful to put as few obstacles as possible in the way of an authority that wishes to discontinue a scheme. If it wishes to halt a scheme, on whatever grounds seem appropriate and relevant, then that is a matter for the charging authority to decide. A statement on the lines required by the amendment would not make any difference to that.
	We are committed to the principle of additionality but the amendment does not help in any way to fulfil our commitment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and particularly his assurance that the products of these revenue streams must be additional. I am bound to say, however, that, whatever Schedule 12 may say, it does nothing to reinforce the point of additionality, or, at least, it does infinitely less than his assurance does. His assurance is quite clear.
	Schedule 12 requires the keeping of separate accounts and the annual publication of them. That will deal very neatly and properly with the issue of revenue raised and revenue spent. But it does not actually deal with the issue of what happens to the other revenue streams that local government has. Although that may help to make what is happening more obvious, it does nothing to guarantee the continuity of those other revenue streams. That is what I would call a "peccadillo" in what was a helpful reply, and one for which I am grateful. I will study with care what the Minister has said, as is my wont. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 223A:
	Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and
	( ) specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed if a vehicle is unable or unequipped to pay the charges required").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 223A deals with the question of producing an alternative route for through traffic if a scheme is introduced. The purpose of the amendment is to tease out something about the administration of these systems. As my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is no longer in his place, said, we always need to remember that the purpose of roads is to help movement. The difficulty we shall have at some point in the future is that some towns will go for automated systems of charging. That will be good and fine, provided that there is a national standard and nationally agreed equipment. We may well be coming to that, but we are certainly not there yet. The alternative would be to put at the border of a district something such as one sees at the end of the Dartford crossing. I happen to have the border of a district on my land. It would be a marginal joy to me if the local transport authority came along and said that it required three or four acres of land in order to put in a tolling station for the benefit of the local community. It would also benefit me somewhat. So I declare an interest in this question.
	There is a serious issue, because we will have to provide systems which will permit the charging of through traffic. If we are to have these schemes, one cannot afford to let the issue get away, not for the monetary reason but for the reason of principle. Therefore, I brought the debate on to the Floor of the Committee so we could see what was going on.
	Amendment No. 224, which is grouped with Amendment No. 223A, would permit different charges for different classes of road user. At present, the Bill provides for different charges for various circumstances but it does not refer to different classes of road user. When we were having a debate on motorcycles, it occurred to me that it was a perfect example of what I mean with this particular amendment. I believe that different levels of charging for different classes of road users is entirely appropriate. I thought that that should be added. There is an amendment to that effect in the group.
	Amendment No. 225, which is also in the group, deals with the question of the publication--we are in the business of informing the public--of the reason for imposing different charges for different cases. I have no doubt that I shall be told that that will be part of the pre-consultation and that these details will be gone into. In my experience, a good many people will not wake up until after the scheme is in place. They will suddenly say, "I have heard nothing about this; I know nothing about it". The public would be disadvantaged if the reasons for differential charging are not a part of the scheme so that they can be read about at that stage. I hope that at the very least the Minister will be sympathetic to that point, although I have no doubt that his sympathy will be much as it has been so often this afternoon. The noble Lord is so charming. It is very difficult to argue with him. He agrees with you but says that there is no need to do anything about the point that you are raising. These are important little amendments.
	To go back to where I began, the problem of dealing with through traffic for long distance journeys will be a considerable one, particularly initially. It would be a trifle unfortunate if we were to step back to the 18th century and have tollgates as one crosses from one local transport authority to another. That is almost implicit in the situation that we are creating. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. I feel that I must almost apologise for finding myself yet again in general agreement with the intentions behind his amendments, if not the exact proposals.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 223A is to require that a charging scheme must specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed by vehicles unable or unequipped to pay the charges. I am sympathetic to the practical point about giving people the option either to pay a charge or take an alternative route. We would expect that schemes will be designed to give information to motorists so they can choose whether or not to enter a charged area or structure. If they do decide to enter the area, they should be prepared to pay the charge. That is the same for currently tolled bridges.
	However, while I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I think it is undesirable to have such a requirement for a number of reasons. It would prevent a charging scheme proceeding if an alternative route was not available, as is the case in the schemes being developed in the Peak District National Park and by Durham County Council in its attempts to protect the unique world heritage site of Durham city.
	Furthermore, the alternative route would have to be suitable for the class of through traffic which the noble Lord is considering. However, one purpose of a charging scheme could be to encourage a shift between modes to protect the environment which would be rendered pointless if diversion of traffic was encouraged. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he does not envisage approving schemes unless some public transport alternative is available. It is not clear exactly what the noble Lord means by "unable"--unable because the driver has forgotten his or her money? We could be moving into a legal minefield with this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it for the reasons I have outlined.
	Subsection (5) of Clause 170 provides examples of some of the factors under which charges may vary. Those include different charges on different days and different charges at different times of day. The list is not, however, exclusive or exhaustive. Other possibilities are not ruled out and to add,
	"different classes of road-user",
	as Amendment No. 224 seeks to do, is not necessary. Furthermore, Clause 171 specifically provides for exemptions and reduced rates of charges. Using these provisions, charging authorities could also, if they wished, charge lower rates for local residents or other classes of road user.
	Amendment No. 225 would require that a charging authority must specify the reasons for charging different amounts in different cases. I agree with the principle, but my preference would be for local authorities to include a justification for different charges when they consult locally on their proposals. That could also be one of the factors we consider in scheme approvals. I would add that local authorities, if challenged on the issue by an application for judicial review in the High Court, would in any case have to be ready to justify different charges.
	I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are unnecessary and will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 223A.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall certainly agree to study with great care what the Minister has said. As always, he argues his case persuasively and sympathises with my intentions. I find that quite charming and indeed--dare I say it?--disarming. But one needs to be certain that even with what he has said--again, he must forgive my scepticism--we have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Although I am infinitely more happy than I was before we had this short debate, I cannot be entirely satisfied. I shall have to give the Minister's reply more thought than is possible immediately on the Floor of the Committee. I shall study the noble Lord's remarks very carefully when they appear in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
	Clause 170 agreed to.
	Clause 171 [Charging schemes: exemptions etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 226:
	Page 103, line 14, at end insert ("which shall include exemption for recognised emergency services, people undertaking repairs to public utilities, and doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients").

Lord Dixon-Smith: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 and Amendment No. 261. This group of amendments deals with the question of exemptions. I have tabled them in part to tease out, if that is possible, what the Government are thinking in this regard. These are very important issues.
	The Government have apparently accepted that the concept of universal charging is inappropriate. They have done so because they have recognised that, particularly with regard to people working for the health service who have to travel to and from work for duty at all hours of the day, it would not be appropriate that they should be included in these charging schemes. That is fine. But many other classes of user will also come within that category one way or another. As the principle is the same, this group of amendments crosses over into workplace parking levies.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Why did the noble Lord choose this specific case? Why did he not choose five, 10 or 15 other cases? Could not all such cases be mentioned in regulations which can be considered later? All the Government are doing is making room for the provision later on of certain circumstances. The noble Lord has chosen one circumstance. Why did he not choose another, or five others?

Lord Dixon-Smith: If one considers just Amendment No. 226, I agree that it mentions only emergency services. However, Amendment No. 243 deals with businesses in a rural area; Amendment No. 244 deals with a business providing fewer than 10 workplace parking spaces; and Amendment No. 245 deals with a business which has introduced a "green transport programme" in relation to its employees. Another amendment deals with a business for which it is necessary to work shifts and one is dealing with the absolute obligation on the employer to introduce double the number of parking places. All those are perfectly reasonable exceptions to argue for if one accepts that exceptions are valid in the first place; and the Government have accepted that.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not take exception to the idea put forward by the noble Lord. What I take exception to is the fact that he has taken the opportunity now rather than when the regulations come to be debated by the House.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may make two points about regulations which may arrive before the House in the future. First, at this stage we do not know what the regulations will contain. Secondly--I debated this point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as recently as last Friday--with regulations one can only approve them or reject them. One cannot amend them.
	Furthermore, we should bear in mind the principle I mentioned earlier this afternoon; namely, the question of when and whether it is appropriate to put detailed provisions on the face of the Bill or whether they would be better dealt with in regulations. The fact of the matter is--and as a matter of principle--I would argue that we would be wise to place as much as possible on the face of the Bill. I accept that complications can arise in so doing, because unless we are careful, the Bill may become more rigid than is intended. However, at least if a matter is placed on the face of the Bill, we can debate it thoroughly, consider the detail and possibly divide on it.
	As regards regulations--I have forgotten the exact number of pages of regulations we debated on Friday last, but it was around 40 to 50--we are faced with Hobson's choice: take it or leave it. One can vote either for or against regulations. That is not a good way to proceed.

Baroness Turner of Camden: Does the noble Lord accept that the making of lists is always fraught with difficulty? It is extremely easy to leave out groups of people who should be on the list. For example, in the list provided by the noble Lord's amendment, while he has included,
	"doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients",
	I should remind him that health visitors need to visit patients and clients. They are not included in the list.
	As I have said, it is difficult to avoid the problem of leaving out those who have an equal claim.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I absolutely agree with that comment, but that is part of the purpose for which we debate these matters in detail. We can then ensure that such lists are absolutely right.
	I do not claim for one moment any degree of infallibility in this area. However, the same argument applies in the case of regulations. It can apply even--heaven help us--in the case of statutory guidance. We can only do our best.
	I do not wish to argue that the list provided in my amendment is by any means the last word on the subject. However, I believe that it is worth arguing on behalf of these particular cases. For example, businesses in rural areas generally should be exempted from workplace parking levies. Such businesses do not cause congestion. Almost invariably, the only way of reaching the business is by car. Occasionally, an employee will live close enough to use a bicycle, but generally speaking, the car is the only realistic means of transport. I believe that we all wish to encourage the establishment of small businesses. Many schemes have been set up so to do. It seems to me that workplace parking levies could well provide a disincentive. They may discourage some people from doing something which otherwise they would do.
	As regards businesses that introduce a green transport policy, I should remind noble Lords that some businesses have already done so. Indeed, we debated this a little while ago because one business found that its employees were being taxed because a taxable benefit had been provided for them. However, what that company had done was in fact in everyone's best interests. I find that to be an interesting point.
	I have already mentioned the case on behalf of those who work in shifts and, of course, those who work in the recognised emergency services. Their case goes without saying.
	I believe that the main point to stress is that, once it is admitted that the principle of universality is not appropriate here, all the other issues will become open to debate. Furthermore, as I have said already, as a matter of principle, I prefer to see all that can possibly be put on the face of the Bill being put on the face of the Bill--inconvenient, difficult and awkward though that may be. The issues can then be debated fully to decide whether to include or reject them. However, in regulations the opportunity for detailed supervision does not arise. All that can be done is to accept what has been put before one in toto or reject it in toto. Very often, for other reasons, rejection is not practicable. In that case, one is forced to accept matters which otherwise would not be acceptable.
	I believe that these amendments are entirely reasonable. No doubt I shall receive the usual helpful, sympathetic and spirited negative response from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister replies, I should say that I am almost moved to sing to him the hymn,
	"Courage, brother, do not stumble",
	after having looked at the list of possible exceptions. We on these Benches broadly support the intentions of the Government here. Exceptions are a great trial.
	When we began to put in the traffic management scheme in Oxford, we received pleas for exceptions from almost every conceivable quarter. Had we given in to those requests, we would not have achieved clear streets. Almost everyone can make a case for exception. It was notable that when the London red routes were set up and parking was restricted on those routes, huge protests were lodged by small businesses. However, it turned out that most of the parking spaces were being occupied by cars and vans that belonged to the proprietors of the small businesses themselves. The vehicles were parked on those main roads all day, thus preventing shoppers and others from using the premises. Objective and independent research into the effects of the red routes has revealed that the number of visits to such premises has in fact increased enormously now that the proprietors' own vehicles are no longer parked in front of their shops.
	As regards concessions, I was disappointed when the Deputy Prime Minister conferred an almost blanket exemption to the employees of National Health Service trusts. As regards hospital sites, with which I am familiar, I would estimate that perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of those using the parking spaces are those engaged in shift work, who could not reasonably use public transport. However, the usual collection of administrators and people in the finance department (they seem to outnumber everyone else) work from nine to five. They, too, are to be covered by that exemption, but there is no reason whatever why those people should be exempted from the rules.
	I ask the Government, in considering their response to the amendments, to trust in the judgment of local authorities. Local government is best placed to draw a reasonable balance as regards requests for exemptions. Indeed, we pay an immediate penalty--usually the following May by being turned out of office--if the job is not done properly.
	Perhaps I may make a specific comment as regards the exemption requested for those ,
	"undertaking repairs to public utilities".
	The phrase "public utilities" used to embrace a small well-defined group of undertakers. It is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is not in his place. He would confirm that those undertakers comprised the gas board, the electricity board, water and telephones. Nowadays, I believe that 80 or 90 different groups appear to have the right to set up roadworks, use skips, dig holes and generally obstruct the flow of traffic. Indeed, we have also seen the rise of the phenomenon of "white van man". He usually parks on the pavement and proceeds to use his van as a mobile workshop, leaving the van in place all day. In all honesty, such people have got to be brought under control, otherwise our streets and pavements will no longer be available to those who have legitimate business.
	My plea to the Government is this: be robust on this matter and put some trust in local authorities. Do not try, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has suggested, to put everything on the face of the Bill. It is not possible to cover all the detail. The Bill will simply become longer and the process of consultation will be even more tortuous than it is now.

Viscount Simon: Amendment No. 227 in this group, standing in my name, is very simple. It is well recognised that registered disabled people are limited by their individual and specific form of disability and therefore need to have special arrangements in respect of use of their vehicles. It is hoped that they will have the new blue disabled persons parking badge, which has replaced the old orange badge. It will enable them to avoid certain parking fines and to park in places not available to other motorists.
	Some years ago, I was told the definition of a disabled person. It is very short: it is someone who is unable to travel by public transport. There are numerous people who have chronic illness which prevents them from using public transport. I am one, and I understand that my difficulty is not unusual. I have a nasty problem with my immune system whereby if I inhale certain chemicals which are now worn by men and women, or tobacco smoke, I can have what my GP describes as akin to an anaphylactic attack in that it is almost instantaneous and vicious. So, in order to avoid the problem, I am allowed to travel only by car. This restricts my life considerably. But to all intents and purposes I am fit and healthy. I can drive without any problem, park normally and comply with every rule, regulation and Act of Parliament. This will illustrate the problem faced not only by me but by other motorists who have chronic diseases that restrict their travelling to only one mode--their own private vehicle.
	If it is accepted that disabled people should be exempted from road user charging because of their disability, it follows that those who have chronic illness should also be exempted from such charges. My noble friend will doubtless ask how this can be managed so as to avoid any abuse of the system. That is easy. It does not form part of this amendment, but it could be covered by regulation. I should be happy to discuss the mechanics further with my noble friend should he so wish.

Lord Berkeley: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, which is in this group of amendments concerned with exemptions, although it could apply equally well to workplace parking.
	I support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there should be minimal exemptions. I am sure that that is the right answer. Shiftworkers could be considered; and my noble friend Lord Simon has made a powerful case for another group.
	My concern is that, human nature being what it is, those who create parking schemes will face a terrible temptation to make sure that they are all right first. That could apply to a local authority; it could apply equally to this House and another place; it could apply to workplace parking and to traffic charging schemes. As I have said previously in Committee, setting an example and getting ownership of all those who will be involved is vital. If the charging authority does not set an example by making its own employees, consultants, advisers and members pay the same amount as everyone else, under the same conditions, the scheme will have failed. That applies to Members, officials and everyone else in this House and in another place.
	This is a probing amendment to see what my noble friend the Minister thinks about the matter and whether he can give some robust suggestion that everyone must be treated equally.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not usually oppose my noble friend, because he served me well when I held the transport portfolio when my party was in opposition. However, I believe that the right thing for my noble friend to do is to make representations at the proper time to my noble friend the Minister. What I have said about the noble Lord applies equally to him. Both have made out good cases individually. But it is wrong at this stage of the Bill, which is lengthy enough in any event, to make representations on behalf of individuals or organisations--unless my noble friend has reasons that are not apparent to me. My experience indicates that he has an open mind on the matter, that he has representations in mind concerning individuals and organisations, and that he does not need the help that either my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite is prepared to give.

Lord Swinfen: On the question of road user charging and workplace levies, I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. But as regards road user charging, it is likely that automated schemes will be introduced to check moving traffic. People will either have to buy in advance the right to take their vehicles into certain areas, or be billed afterwards. Therefore, are the Government proposing increased allowances for people who are registered disabled so as to take account of road user charging and to reimburse them for it? In the long term, that is probably the most practical method of dealing with the matter in order that there will not be delays at checkpoints while the validity of a driver, or indeed the passenger if that person is so disabled that he or she is unable to drive, is checked to verify that the vehicle is exempt. In relation to disabled people who must use a private vehicle, there should be a proper exemption from the workplace parking levy.
	It would be helpful if at this stage the Government would indicate what they have in mind in the way of exemptions, or compensation for lack of exemptions, in regard to both road user charging schemes and the workplace levy. That could help us at later stages in the Bill and might well mean that we need not table quite so many amendments in future. I am sure that the Government have given themselves plenty of time to think about this matter.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I should like to thank noble Lords for raising the important matter of exemption from road user charges and workplace parking levies. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for lending me his considerable weight in matters of procedure. Some of the suggestions by Members of the Committee for possible exemptions or concessions make good sense, but again we differ on the approach.
	The Government's response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, sought views on possible exemptions or concessions. We invited views on what exemptions from charges or other concessions should be specified nationally, and what exemptions or concessions would be best left to local discretion. A copy of the response was placed in the Library in February.
	In England, we are proposing that there will be a national exemption from both road user charges and workplace parking charges for emergency vehicles. We are proposing that there will also be some form of exemption from both charges for disabled persons. In addition, we are proposing some form of exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for National Health Service hospitals.
	However, we are firmly of the view that these national exemptions from charges should be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. This regulation-making power is provided by virtue of Clause 171 for road user charging and Clause 186 for workplace parking levy. This will ensure that we can work with appropriate interest groups, such as organisations that represent disabled people, to ensure that our proposed exemptions or concessions are workable and equitable. That could not be guaranteed if we sought to specify exemptions now on the face of the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Simon proposes an exemption for registered disabled people and those with chronic illnesses that prevent them from using public transport. I was sorry to hear of my noble friend's inhibiting disability, which does not allow him to travel by public transport. The work done by the Commission for Integrated Transport shows that of all European countries, the UK is foremost in provision for travel by disabled people on public transport.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to restate our commitment, in our response to Breaking the Logjam, to some form of exemption in England for disabled motorists from road user charges and the workplace parking levy. We are undertaking further work, so it is too early to say what the best approach to an exemption will be. We are working with experts and representative groups to develop our proposals, on which we will consult in due course. Key issues will be who should be included in the scope of an exemption and how an exemption can be enforced fairly and effectively. We are firmly of the view that the best way is to use the power in Clause 171 to make regulations--rather than put something prescriptive in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree not to press his amendment.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising the important question of how public sector organisations and charging authorities themselves should be treated. His amendment would prevent regulations made by the Secretary of State from exempting charging authorities or other public sector bodies from road user charges--but it would not prevent a charging authority from exempting itself from road user charges or from offering local exemptions to other public sector bodies.
	We said in response to Breaking the Logjam that we do not envisage approving a workplace parking levy scheme if exemptions are proposed simply on the basis that buildings are council owned. The same logic applies to a charging authority's liability for road charges. Nor do we propose widespread exemptions from road user charges for public sector organisations. The public sector bears part of the responsibility for causing congestion and would reap the benefits of reduced congestion. It must therefore bear its part of the responsibility for tackling congestion. Widespread public sector exemptions would be impossible to justify to other sectors of the economy and would undermine the effectiveness of schemes to tackle congestion.
	We propose, however, national exemption from road charges for emergency vehicles--which have no discretion over the time, destination or means by which they travel, and whose work is often a matter of life or death. We propose that regulations under Clause 171 should provide for national exemption. As the police, fire and ambulance services are public-sector bodies, Amendment No. 227A would prevent that happening. I hope that my noble friend will accept my reassurance on the treatment of charging authorities and that they will not duck their liability for charges, and that my noble friend will understand that a national exemption for emergency services is essential.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes a number of exemptions additional to those we intend to specify in regulations. I have made it clear that we are committed to giving local authorities responsibility for devising charging and licensing schemes that reflect local circumstances, priorities and needs. On that basis, we have kept national exemptions to a minimum. Local authorities may want to add other locally decided exemptions but we are firmly of the view that decisions about others and concessions--other than the small number that will apply nationally--should be taken locally in the design of an individual charging or licensing scheme.
	Local authorities may want to set a threshold that exempts the first few parking places at a building from the workplace levy--and there are good arguments in favour. A threshold could help small businesses and reduce the administrative effort of managing and enforcing a scheme. However, in advance of working with the first levy scheme proposals and giving further consideration to the impact of thresholds, we are not in a position to consider whether a national threshold is appropriate or the level at which it should be pitched. The threshold of 10 parking spaces proposed by Amendment No. 244 might work in one town but another level might be more appropriate elsewhere.
	Amendment No. 243 suggests that any business in a rural area should be exempted. These are enabling powers, so it is for each local traffic authority to decide whether and where to use them. Each is subject to our approval and we have said that in approving schemes, we envisage and expect that every scheme will have a direct bearing on local congestion problems--rather than simply being a means of raising revenue. If a rural area has no congestion problems, our expectation is that there will be a presumption against our approving a scheme--although the Secretary of State would have to give fair consideration to the merits of any put forward.
	As to Amendment No. 245, I accept that there may be merit in giving exemptions or concessions to businesses that have agreed green travel plans that minimise their employees' reliance on car travel. I hope the Committee accepts that it would be best to tackle the matter locally, perhaps with guidance or regulations--not least because of the problems of definitions exemplified in the amendment's wording. A "green transport programme" is not defined in statute and there could be endless arguments in the courts over what constituted a significant reduction in the need for travel by car.
	Amendment No. 246 suggests that all parking by any shift workers should be exempted from the workplace parking levy. Workers driving to a shift that began at 9 a.m. would be adding to peak-hour congestion in the same way as any other workers. There would be no logic to their exemption. I accept that there is a concern about people working during the night, when there may be little alternative to driving. Local authorities will be able to limit the hours when a parking licence is required, to exclude evenings and nights if that makes sense locally. It is worth noting that a licence to park a maximum of 50 vehicles, for example, will cover 50 vehicles during the day shift and an entirely different 50 vehicles during the night shift at no additional cost.
	I accept also that there is then an issue about how shift handovers are managed. For a limited period, as one shift departs and another arrives, there may be an unavoidable need for excess parking. We intend to give guidance to local authorities to ensure that such situations are dealt with flexibly. We envisage that an employer would be allowed additional parking during a defined shift handover period at no extra cost.
	We propose a national exemption for emergency vehicles from the workplace parking levy and road user charges but not for parking by employees at, say, an ambulance station. The public sector must take its share of the responsibility for congestion, and there would be the same value in public sector employees switching from car commuting as any others. Having spelt out at some length and in detail the Government's position on exemptions from new charges, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw or not move their amendments.

Lord Swinfen: The Minister did not answer my question about moving vehicle charging, where it may not be possible to identify whether the driver or passenger of a vehicle is disabled. Will there be some form of compensation for disabled people who might otherwise be exempt when they pass through a charging point?
	While the Minister was speaking another thought came into my mind. A number of people work from home and often have assistants or secretaries who visit them. Will a workplace charge be levied on a person who works from home or his secretary or assistant? At some stage that may be a contentious point.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I apologise for not having addressed that question directly. I assumed that I had, at least indirectly, given comfort to the noble Lord. In regulation we shall provide for the disabled, but the exact form of that provision is subject to further consultation. We believe that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord are better defined during that consultation period.

Lord Swinfen: Will the Minister answer my question about the treatment of those who work from home and their assistants or secretaries?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: That is exactly the kind of detailed question that is perhaps best addressed in consultation. Therefore, at this stage I do not want to respond to the noble Lord's question definitively.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a very constructive, useful debate. If all of us have come to the subject from slightly different perspectives at least we are agreed on the principle, even if the detail is not accepted. The problems of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in relation to white van man are, all too often, almost the opposite of mine, but perhaps that is inevitable given that his experience is urban and mine is rural. However, if white van man is not permitted to park on the pavement because somebody has a gas leak we shall experience real problems. It may be that that is a fairly rare occurrence, but we must be able to deal with white van man in both contexts.
	I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to the registered disabled. I deliberately did not table amendments to deal with it because I was absolutely confident that others would do so, as they have. There is a very persuasive case in that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may not agree that he supported me, but he did. In seeking to tackle a fundamental aspect of the problem in this particular field the noble Lord spoke to what I might call a negative exemption.
	The Minister has given a very detailed exposition of the flaws in our drafting, among other things, and the difficulty of dealing with such matters on the face of the Bill. I am the first to accept that they are difficult to deal with in legislation. However, they are no less difficult to deal with in regulation and certainly in guidance. They remain problems. The only difference is that, to a greater or lesser degree, by being dealt with in that way they escape our supervision. As to that there is a fundamental difference.
	That said, the appropriate national authority, be it the Assembly for Wales or the Minister in England, will be charged with making these regulations. He will make national exemptions. Further, because he has power to approve local schemes in effect he will make regulations which local people wish to apply. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If one is a wild optimist it will work beautifully; if, like me, one is a sceptical old pessimist it will not work quite so well. The whole purpose of this process is to ensure that it works as well as possible. Nothing in this world is perfect.
	In the previous clause we accepted wide differences in principle and differentiation in charges at different times. I do not see why more of the considerations that the Minister dealt with in his detailed response cannot be put into the Bill. They must be put onto paper and spelt out in detail in due course. Somebody must account for it, even in this Chamber. Therefore, in part this debate seeks to prevent future trouble.
	The debate has been helpful. The Minister has dealt with the matter as helpfully as possible, for which I respect him. I believe that in this instance the Minister has helped all Members of the Committee. I shall study the response of the Minister with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 227 and 227A not moved.]
	Clause 171 agreed to.
	Clause 172 [Penalty charges]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 228:
	Page 104, line 10, after ("if") insert (", with intent to avoid payment of a charge imposed by a charging scheme under this Part,").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 228 is another simple amendment. The Bill provides that the removal of a penalty charge notice from a vehicle is a criminal offence. I entirely accept that in appropriate circumstances it should be a criminal offence. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that if the notice is removed inadvertently, or whatever, somebody may be charged with a criminal offence when he has no such intention; indeed, the removal may have been done by somebody else. It appears that the mere fact of its removal makes the owner of the vehicle automatically liable to the charge.
	It may be that the Minister will tell me that this matter is to be dealt with subsequently by regulation. Here we go round the mulberry bush again. None the less, this particular group of amendments is designed to produce consistency and to introduce intent in relation to criminality. It would be unfortunate if inadvertence became a cause of criminality. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain our thinking behind the enforcement of charging schemes. In so doing I hope to convince the noble Lord that his amendments are unnecessary as the Bill already provides for what he seeks to achieve. We amended the Bill in another place in response to concerns raised by his honourable friends on this very subject. The criminal offences described in Clauses 172 to 174 deal with both wilfully defrauding a charging authority and the effective enforcement of schemes.
	If an enforcement agent has reason to believe that an individual has the intent to avoid payment, or has been identified as having failed to pay, he must be able to undertake certain actions. Those actions, for example entering a vehicle, need to have the same sanction as the original misdemeanour in order to be effective. If that was not the case it would make schemes particularly difficult to enforce. Thus, in this instance what the noble Lord seeks is already catered for within the Bill.
	However, to require proof of intent for each criminal offence would make some charging schemes unenforceable. For example, schemes that rely on manual enforcement need effective sanctions. If there were no effective sanction to prevent a person from removing a penalty charge notice from a windscreen, or tampering with an immobilisation device, regardless of whether or not he had a financial interest, a scheme that depended on that type of enforcement could be unenforceable.
	If with that scenario the noble Lord's amendment were carried, the enforcement agent would have to demonstrate that whoever interfered with the penalty charge notice of the immobilisation device did so intending to avoid paying a charge. If the person concerned was, for example, a passenger in the vehicle and therefore not liable for the charge, he would also be able to act without risk of prosecution. I do not imagine that that is what the noble Lord intends.
	I hope that the noble Lord can see the logic behind the balance which we have sought to achieve, taking into account the arguments of his noble friends in another place, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again, the Minister explained the difficulties involved in trying to put into words the concepts with which we are dealing. He has given assurances which are most helpful and which I shall study with care. I hope that I shall have no need to return to the subject and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 172 agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 229:
	Page 104, line 41, leave out ("or requiring").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This group of amendments is aimed at giving to local authorities, rather than to the "appropriate national authority", power to decide how they want to enforce the schemes. I dislike the term "appropriate national authority" because it sounds as though it is connected to a science fiction society. However, now that we have various forms of national authority we must use the term.
	If local authorities want to devise a scheme they should have the power to decide how to enforce it. Subsection (5) enables the national authority to insist that a charging authority must take a power to seize and detain anything as evidence of the commission of an offence. I do not see how one can bring a charge connected with the commission of an offence unless one collects the evidence. It struck me that the provision almost authorised local authorities to employ one of the local car thieves to enter a vehicle in order to remove evidence.
	I well remember after a garden party being stuck in The Mall with a car which had locked itself. Its locking system completely floored the AA, the RAC and all the local police. Eventually, a Flying Squad car came along. The officer got out and said, "I see you have a little difficulty". The driver confessed that that was the case. He said, "Well, don't look", and in three seconds the car was open. There is no need for that because we can deal with the matter by other means.
	However, I am back in the business of arguing for local discretion. If we are to have local schemes, we should leave them to the locals, particularly when dealing with powers which relate to property. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendments and his personal experience. It needs to be clear that the provisions under which any charging scheme is introduced are enabling powers only. That remains the case. It is therefore not a requirement that local authorities adopt any particular arrangements for those schemes.
	However, as regards enforcement, where local authorities adopt charging schemes there must be some prescription on the method of enforcement. The noble Lord will recognise that it would not be sensible for different local authorities and their agents to have different powers in enforcing schemes they have chosen to introduce.
	If we were to do so, it would mean that arrangements and procedures for entering vehicles, collecting evidence, immobilising vehicles and so forth would be different from one authority to another and entirely at the discretion of the charging authorities. In many case, such discretion would not be appropriate and would not reflect the current practice under road traffic law; for example, wheelclamping or immobilisation.
	We already have prescriptions on such issues in road traffic law. That does not necessarily mean that all local authorities adopt the same schemes, but where they are enforcing charges they must be subject to national regulation. We are dealing with entering property, with restraining property and with the enforcement of fines.
	The regulations will be fair, effective and equitable. If it were left entirely to local authorities, some strange anomalies could arise. The noble Lord's amendment would allow that to happen and I hope that he will not press it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had always understood that one of the reasons for having local government was to permit the creation of diversity. I do not believe that diversity in these matters would be a problem. None the less, I shall study the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 229A to 231 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 232:
	Page 105, line 19, at end insert--
	("(7) In exercising its powers pursuant to regulations made under this section, a charging authority shall exercise reasonable care and use the minimum force necessary, and shall be liable to compensate the registered owner of the relevant motor vehicle and any other person for any loss suffered by him as a result of its failure to do so.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: The amendment is designed to protect property rights. It ensures that if an authority in its pursuit of evidence is unreasonably violent with someone else's property and does unnecessary damage, there is a right of compensation to the owner as a result. I hope that we can all agree with that principle and that we do not need to argue about it.
	There should never be a need to damage a vehicle if one requires evidence. As the Minister pointed out, there are other ways of solving the problem; for instance, clamping the vehicle and waiting until the appropriate person arrives. You can then get anything you want, voluntarily or compulsorily as the case may be.
	I believe that the issue of compensation is worth writing into the Bill and with that in mind I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Would the noble Lord care to indicate why his amendment is different from the present law?

Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not know whether it is different from the present law. The Bill creates new powers and I believe that in doing so we should have some regard to their possible abuse. That is all the amendment is directed at; it is a limited point.

Lord Whitty: We all agree that it is necessary for citizens to have safeguards against enforcement agencies overstepping the mark or going about their business in the wrong way, and that some form of redress is necessary. I also agree with the implication behind the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis--that the common law already provides for that redress. Our judicial system allows those who believe that they have been wrongly treated by enforcement agencies to gain redress. That is no different from any other area where enforcement agencies of the local authority or, indeed, the police are subject to the common law in that respect.
	Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord in principle--indeed, if I may revert to the previous amendment, some of his arguments provided a good reason for having regulations--I believe that the issue of redress is dealt with adequately in existing common law remedies.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance because it is precisely what I sought. Our difficulty is in ascertaining precisely whether what we do impinges on the common law. I am glad that this does not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 173 agreed to.
	Clause 174 [Immobilisation etc]:
	[Amendments Nos. 233 to 236A not moved.]
	Clause 174 agreed to.
	Clause 175 [Equipment etc]:
	[Amendment No. 236B not moved.]
	Clause 175 agreed to.
	Clause 176 [Traffic signs]:
	[Amendment No. 236C not moved.]
	Clause 176 agreed to.
	Clause 177 [Preliminary]:
	[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 238:
	Page 107, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Committee for taking so much of its time but it seems that no one else wishes to discuss these particular points; therefore, perforce, I must.
	The amendment deals with the workplace charging levy. Clause l77(2) provides for the occupier of the premises in question, or any person specified in regulations by the national authority, to be liable for the workplace charging levy. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the right of the appropriate national authority to specify the person liable in regulations. The payment of the charges is a matter of taxation. I believe that the matter of who pays the taxes should be on the face of the Bill and not simply a subject of regulation.
	In a way, this is a matter of principle. This issue comes under the same principle as we argued earlier--the question of whether taxation should be by regulation or by legislation. We considered that this was a matter for taxation by legislation and that the question of liability should not be decided subsequently by regulation.
	I accept that there is a potential problem with regard to the workplace parking levy in that the levy is intended to target the employee in order to dissuade him from using his car. Therefore, ideally he will be the person who pays. However, if that is the case, that should be referred to on the face of the Bill and I do not believe that we should leave the differentiation to simple regulation. Of course, if the Minister says that it is a matter for local determination, then we should say so and I should be happy with that. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: There is no great conspiracy behind this issue. We envisage that in the vast majority of cases the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying the workplace parking charge. However, in a small number of cases it may be more appropriate to make someone else liable. That is why we included the regulation-making power, which we shall need to consider as schemes are developed. For example, regulations may be required in order to cater for liability at premises which are shared by more than one occupier, or where a car park at a premises is used but not owned by the building occupier--in other words, perhaps a neighbouring employer and not the occupier of the premises uses the car parking space.
	The provision allows the covering of such loopholes by regulation. The range of potential loopholes on which we need to base the regulations will become apparent only as and when schemes are developed. However, in general this is not a "coach and horses" matter, and in the overwhelming number of cases the occupier will be liable.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. He is his usual charming self and very persuasive. I shall study what he has said and may well need to return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 239:
	Page 107, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) No licensing authority shall introduce the workplace parking levy before 1st January 2004 and then only if they can produce evidence that expenditure on transport infrastructure in the relevant area has already increased by at least 20 per cent above the level of such expenditure in 1999-2000 and as a result congestion has reduced by 20 per cent.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: If I interpreted correctly what I read in the press, the Government said that they do not wish to see workplace parking charges or, indeed, other charges introduced until local transport authorities have improved the traffic environment within their areas. That, of course, is wholly laudable. It may be what I would call politically necessary. However, the amendment sets out simply to quantify that statement. It probes precisely what the Government mean by "improving" the local traffic environment before the charges are introduced and what level of improvement they might consider desirable or necessary.
	In part, the amendment seeks also to discover whether the Government are serious about achieving improvement or whether they are merely in the business of politics (with a small "p") and trying to make the unpalatable more palatable. I believe that we would all prefer improvement to palatability. Therefore, this is an important matter and I believe that we should try to clarify what the Government said. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, makes an unusual distinction between politics and life. Palatability is one of the tests that the national authorities must meet in relation to the scheme. Therefore, it is important that with the introduction of a workplace parking scheme those who have been consulted--businesses and local people--can see a benefit for their area in terms of congestion and traffic flows. That is part of the total assessment and an authority will be judged on it, as it will be on the technicalities of the scheme itself.
	The amendment specifies two further restrictions. The first is the date. The noble Lord is correct to say that we envisage that schemes will take some time to introduce, partly to give time to assess public opinion. We believe that it will be four or five years before there are major schemes in operation, although some may come before that. However, there is no point in specifying an artificial date for the start of schemes at 1st January 2004. If authorities are able to introduce schemes before that, which are supported, we shall encourage them in doing so.
	The other obstacles are hopelessly mechanistic. The amendment says that before a scheme starts, spending on transport infrastructure must have increased by 20 per cent on current levels and congestion must have been reduced by 20 per cent--again on current levels, I assume. If I were to make a party political point, I could argue that the money available has already increased by 20 per cent, and no doubt we shall receive further good news from the Chancellor and from my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston later this week. That may meet the spending criterion, but it may be inappropriate to put a 20 per cent hurdle on congestion benefits, particularly given the timescale. Some may take longer to reach such benefits. Local people, local businesses and the community at large might think it ridiculous to reject a scheme that has given a 19 per cent improvement in congestion.
	The Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on whether a scheme is robust and has sufficient public support and whether it will lead to reductions in congestion and produce other environmental benefits, but it is not sensible to specify figures in the Bill.
	Another problem with the amendment, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, is that the requirement will be ineffective unless the legislation includes a definition of congestion. I know to my cost that that is not easy, and no definition is included in the amendment. I hope that he will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I was well aware, when I tabled my amendment, of the arguments that it was mechanistic and too detailed. However, it seemed important to try to tease out what the Government meant by the statements that had been made. With all deference to the Minister, I cannot say that I feel any great confidence arising from his reply. Nor was there the precision I was seeking. But perhaps that was too much to hope for. I do not want to get into statistical arguments about past, present or future levels of expenditure. We all know that we can prove almost anything if we are selective with our use of statistics. I am as guilty of that as anyone else. The public become confused when we have such debates.
	I think that the Minister intended his reply to be helpful and I found it so. I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: moved Amendment No. 240:
	Page 107, line 28, at end insert--
	("( ) A licensing scheme shall be agreed at a regional level between local transport executives and charges shall be consistent across that region.").

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I apologise for not having been here to move Amendment No. 237. There are a number of reasons for that. One is the swiftness with which we went through the amendments immediately before it. Another is that I could not work out what I had meant by it when I tabled it.
	However, I know what I mean by Amendment No. 240, to which I shall speak briefly. It deals with a problem that we all know can arise when particular freedoms are devolved to certain areas. When a scheme is set up, however good it is for that area, some industries may decide to move to the next-door area and take away the benefits that their presence brings to free themselves from the restrictions of being in that area. My suggestion--it is only a suggestion at this stage--is that licensing schemes should be agreed at regional level so that conditions are consistent over a large area. That would make it harder to evade the schemes and reduce the likelihood of patchwork provision. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Regardless of the detail of the amendment, I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, makes about the need for schemes to have more than just a local and parochial basis. If we had regional authorities, they would be considering exactly these issues. I do not know whether we would support consistent charging, but we would certainly like a regional element to the decision-making.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, support the idea of the workplace parking levy. I am afraid that the amendment would hinder the concept. I recognise the merits of consistency, but we think that it should be for individual local authorities to decide whether to introduce a scheme in their area as part of their local transport plan.
	The Bill already provides that local authorities can work together to bring forward joint schemes, which, if they could be organised, could well cover a whole region. However, some authorities may prefer to wait to see the effects of a scheme in a neighbouring authority. One authority may have such an urgent need that it will want to go ahead without waiting for anybody else. The amendment would rule out both possibilities.
	We also believe that local authorities should have the flexibility to apply different charges, not just between one authority and another, but in different parts of their area, and to decide when the charges would apply. I know that the word "consistent" does not mean the same as "uniform", but the search for consistency might be a drag on the establishment of workplace parking levies, rather than helping. Congestion problems vary between and within authority areas. Our approach enables local authorities to design and bring forward the schemes that will best help to tackle traffic congestion, which they know about, and promote local transport objectives, which they set.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support of the idea behind the amendment. I still think there is much to be said for it, but I accept what the Minister said. There is a finely balanced argument to be had about how much power to give at what level. I take the Minister's points and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 177 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith: In opposing this Motion, we are seeking to excise Chapter II of this part of the Bill. We thought that we should have this discussion because, as this is proposed, it is a straightforward increase in corporate taxation.
	The occupier of the premises is to be the person who pays the bill. We have heard that in the vast generality of cases that is what is intended. We need to know that that is what is intended. One must then ask: what will happen? This provision is supposed to reduce congestion and pollution. There is a question as to whether the employer can pass the charge on to his employees. If this Bill is supposed to act as a disincentive to employees to travel, it might have been more honest for the Bill to require those employees to pay the charge; but it does not. And so it is an increase in corporate taxation.
	Ultimately, who will pay for that? Again, we should be quite clear about that. In effect, this will become a cost on business. It will have an inflationary effect because businesses will seek to defend their financial position. Therefore, there will be a little price rise here or a little price rise there or even, heaven help us, a big price rise somewhere else. That is what will happen. The impact of that on the economy, particularly in those sectors which are not immediately highly competitive, may be extremely damaging and may have an adverse effect on the economy as a whole.
	We do not believe that the workplace parking levy as proposed will have the desired effect on travel and transport which the Government envisage because of the way it is put on the face of the Bill. So we thought that we really should argue the case against this clause and it is patently obvious that that is what I am now doing. I do not expect to receive a great deal of sympathy--why should I?--from Ministers on the Bench opposite. But I do not apologise to the Committee for raising the issue. I commend the Motion to the Committee.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is not possible for us on these Benches to support the Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. That is for various very simple reasons. It may be argued that workplace levies will not be imposed very often. It is assumed that it will not be a popular method of attempting to reduce congestion and pollution in towns and cities.
	Other methods are available which are used elsewhere; for example, prohibiting entry into towns between certain hours. There is a whole range of other options. But this Bill does not oblige local authorities to go down this route; it enables them to do so if it is a suitable adjunct to their general purpose of reducing traffic, traffic congestion and the damage that that causes in the context of their local transport plans. As such, it is a useful tool which local authorities can use if they wish to do so. No doubt if pilot studies are carried out of this tool and how it operates in practice we shall all learn a great deal more about it and its potential usefulness. Therefore, I am not prepared to support the Motion.

Lord Whitty: I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not expecting a great deal of sympathy from our Benches on this matter. While most of his amendments are either probing or designed genuinely to improve the Bill, this Motion comes close to being a wrecking Motion because it would take out a major part of the Bill.
	This clause introduces the whole concept of the workplace parking levy which we regard as a major new tool for the control of urban traffic in particular. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we make those new powers available to local authorities but we do not oblige them to use them. We shall certainly not force them to do so. Therefore, the powers are discretionary. But the authorities which adopt them must go through an extremely rigorous process of making clear that a workplace parking scheme fits in within their traffic objectives in their local transport plans.
	We all know that the availability of convenient and free or cheap parking at work is a major encouragement to travel to work in the car during the most congested part of the day, even when there is available good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. Because it involves finance, the levy will focus the minds of business on the provision of parking and they may then assess how their employees get to work and encourage them to adopt patterns of travelling to work, and perhaps patterns of operating the business, which reduce car reliance.
	It is important also from the point of view of local business that the recycling of all the revenue obtained from the scheme will be to the benefit of transport within that locality, which will, of itself, be of benefit to business.
	Prior to the approval of any plans, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that they will help to tackle congestion; that they will be accompanied or preceded by improvements in public transport; that there has been adequate consultation; that there is an appropriate assessment of the impact; and that 100 per cent of the funds obtained will be spent on improving local transport.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked: who will pay? I ask: who will benefit? Many of our cities are clogged up with traffic, particularly at certain times of day. A huge contribution to that is people who are driving into the centre of those cities for work because there is the provision of free or cheap parking.
	It is greatly to the benefit of business that that clogging up of traffic and gridlocks within our cities are removed. The removal of such traffic by this disincentive would greatly improve access to those business premises; improve ability to deliver through those difficult times; and improve the journeys and reliability of journey times for all sales persons, delivery persons and clients of those businesses.
	The noble Lord sees this matter through one end of the telescope and says that business will pay. I look at it through the other and I see that business can achieve a major benefit from this measure. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this wrecking Motion. That would not be to the advantage of those local businesses for which the local authorities see advantage in providing such a scheme and, of course, local authorities will be obliged to consult local business before introducing it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Motion.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had difficulty in appreciating his reference to good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. In my experience, most people use public transport out of sheer necessity. It is a matter of bitter experience that those adjectives do not apply.
	It may be that there would be some benefit to business if congestion were reduced. But if one looks at the relevant transport system, the idea that it is ever going to be an alternative to the mobility which a car provides is unbelievable.
	We need to pause for a moment and wonder why people use their cars. It is easy to say that they do so because public transport is not available and that there is a chicken and egg situation. However, the fact of the matter is that public transport is appropriate where a lot of people want to make the same journey. The reality is that the diversity of employment and movement is such that the majority of people, rather like a blob of mercury hit with a hammer, every morning fly in a vast number of different directions. In those circumstances it is not easy, except in the metropolitan areas, to see how a public transport system will help to a great degree.
	There is also the fact that as the economy grows, the demand for movement grows. There is precious little evidence at present that we have managed to get the growth in public transport to run faster than the growth in the economy. Growth is talked about in rail and bus use. There may be a picking up in growth but so far it is not faster than the growth in the economy. Therefore, there is a real difficulty. None the less, I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. The Committee will be relieved to hear that at this hour and this stage I shall not oppose the Motion that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill.

Clause 177 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee Stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Patents Regulations 2000

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
	The draft legislation concerns the implementation of Articles 1 to 11 of European Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions into United Kingdom patent law. Biotechnology is a relatively new science and offers huge potential. For example, treatments for asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hepatitis B and some forms of cancer are already being improved through biotechnological solutions. Biotechnological changes to crops, so that they are able to withstand extremes of climate while reducing reliance on pesticides and herbicides, are highly significant developments and these may be merely the tip of an iceberg. If this sector is to develop its potential benefits for enhancing quality of life, the legal framework within which decisions are made to invest in research and to bring new products to market must encourage innovation and the taking of commercial risks. The patents system is an integral part of that framework.
	While those examples and other developments of themselves must be good things, I am very much aware of the social and ethical concerns that surround this new technology and the need for a full understanding of the relationship between scientific research, ethics and the law. Scientific developments must be life enhancing and not dehumanising. The directive sought to address those issues as far as patent law can, and sought to get the balance right.
	The directive has a long history. As far back as 1985, the Commission's White Paper on the completion of the internal market foreshadowed action on biotechnological patents. A first proposal for the harmonisation of patent laws in this field emerged in 1988 and the Council of Ministers was able to adopt a common position on a directive in 1994. However, the European Parliament voted against that text in 1995 and the proposal was not adopted.
	The Commission produced a second proposal later that year. Following scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, the UK Government joined a qualified majority in adopting the directive in December 1997. The directive entered into European law in July 1998 and member states have until 30th July to implement.
	The texts of European national patents law are already closely aligned as all EU member states are party to the European Patent Convention, an intergovernmental agreement dating from 1973. However, differences in interpretation of these laws in respect of biotechnological inventions encouraged the European Commission to bring forward a proposal to reduce or eliminate variations which were cited by industry as causing uncertainties, and so reducing incentives to invest in costly research. Such a deterrent is unwelcome and the directive sought to address that.
	Of course, patent rights are without prejudice to other bodies of law. Patents provide what might be called a negative right; that is, a right to prevent others from using a protected invention. They do not give rights to use an invention or to market products or services embodying a protected invention. Such use is determined, for instance, by regulations safeguarding human dignity, the environment, animal welfare and competition. Those are not affected.
	The regulations create little change in United Kingdom law, which is the Patents Act 1977. They do not lead to anything becoming patentable which is not currently patentable under existing legislation, but introduce changes to limit access to patent rights in certain sensitive areas of technology. For example, patents will not be granted for reproductive cloning of human beings, for processes where the germ line genetic identity of human beings is modified and for certain processes in which human embryos are used.
	In particular, it should be noted that under UK law at present, human genes as they exist in the cells in our bodies cannot be patented. The directive establishes that basic principle across Europe, rightly making clear that patents will be obtainable only for inventions for new technical solutions. The simple discovery that a gene sequence exists in nature, or the information contained in such a sequence, will not be able to be patented as it is not of itself an invention.
	That is fully consistent with the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and President Clinton on the human genome. That stated that raw, fundamental information about the genetic make-up of the body should be freely available. The United Kingdom has very clear rules, reinforced by the directive and the draft legislation before us to ensure that basic gene sequence information will not be patented.
	I should add that a regulatory impact assessment was signed by the Minister on 3rd July and has been placed in the Library of both Houses. It gives evidence of extensive public consultation earlier this year. A summary of the views expressed in the consultation and the information available from the consultation will be published in due course. The consultees will be advised of the debate in this House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had little to say about this regulation until earlier this evening. I was simply going to make the point, not just in respect of this regulation but the others too, that, frankly, the Explanatory Notes are a misnomer. They are explanatory only if one understands the whole issue sufficiently to be able to follow the original statutory instrument. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that it has always been thus. Maybe it is time we thought about changing things and making the Explanatory Notes more of an explanatory note and less of a repeat of small parts of the statutory instrument.
	However, the real point I want to make came to me in a fax I received from Mr Anthony Keeling of Elsoms Seeds. It is particularly about plants, not animals. I accept that much of the Minister's speech was about animals, especially, indeed, the human animal and the genes we all have.
	If I may, I am going to do a version of what I might describe as a "Tam Dalyell"; that is, I am going to read out the letter. It is not a subject with which I am familiar. But the person who sent the letter has a point. Perhaps the principal point is this. The Minister mentioned that this statutory instrument was in adherence to a European directive. Have we gone any further than that European directive? In other words, have we gold-plated it in any way? Is there anything in this instrument which is a step further than the European directive? The reason I ask that will become clear in a minute.
	Mr Keeling writes thus:
	"I am writing to you urgently as I understand [that this] will be debated tonight in the House of Lords and because representations made by me and our trade society, The British Society of Plant Breeders, have been ignored in this draft Statutory Instrument. In particular, completely contrary to the intention of European legislators, the current draft specifically disadvantages smaller breeders who do not have a major in-house gene bank and do not have direct access to biotechnology patents.
	"To be quite specific in section 7 of the draft SI 'patented biotechnological inventions: patent licences' it is now required that the applicant is the holder of Plant Breeders Rights in a plant variety and has another plant variety which is/was bred from that first variety but which cannot be exploited without infringing the patent concerned.
	"For consumers, a strength of Plant Breeders Rights legislation is that competitors are completely free to use a breeder's protected variety to create new varieties. In fact small breeders, without a large historic background of their own varieties, use competitors varieties as the main source of their parent material. (This is amply proven by the declared parents in National List applications.) The draft SI, therefore, effectively disenfranchises smaller breeders from being able to use the compulsory licence provisions! The British Society of Plant Breeders has made the point to the government's civil servants that the vital aspect which should be covered by this Statutory Instrument is that the applicant ('the breeder') should be a potential holder of Plant Breeders Rights. To encourage competition and smaller breeding enterprises it is crucial that this change is incorporated into this legislation in line with the letter and the intent of the European Directive concerned. The whole point of the compulsory licence provisions was to enable breeders, such as us, to have some equity in this area. As this draft stands, quite the contrary, patent holders will readily be able to obtain a compulsory licence to enable them to register 'our' variety incorporating their patented construct whereas, as I have indicated above, the converse is almost impossible for us".
	I understand that when it comes to, say, winter wheat, the major player in this field is now Monsanto and that company owns around 80 per cent of the parents. Previously a small breeder could actually use those parents to breed their own variety. But under this statutory instrument they will not be able to do so. Mr Keeling's point is that that goes a lot further than the directive asks us to go. He suggests to me that this simply looks like protection for the market leader in any particular field.
	I know that this is a complicated issue. As I do not pretend to understand it deeply, I do not expect the Minister to give me chapter and verse. If he is able to do so, I shall be extremely grateful and, as always, impressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. But if he is not, I understand that he will write to me afterwards.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in his description of the documents given to us as being an explanatory memorandum. They use "explanatory" in the same way as we call fee-paying schools "public" when they are not.
	However, a number of points have been raised by those who have concerns about this statutory instrument. I would welcome the Minister either answering tonight or writing to me through his officials. First, are we correct in assuming that under these regulations farmers are entirely safe using their own home-grown seed or can they do that only when it is clear that the sellers--that is, seed merchants or other sellers--agree to their using their harvest for seed? Or will farmers in future have to make entirely sure that they read the small print on the seed sacks in order to be safe in using their own home-grown seed?
	Secondly, people have certain anxieties in relation to the human genome project and this statutory instrument. The great thing about the recent announcement on the successful completion of the human genome project was the fact that the information would be put into the public domain and not be associated particularly with private intellectual property rights. Are the regulations saying that, provided we can clearly identify the function of a sequence and that it has some industrial or medical application--for example, a breast cancer gene or a gene for muscular dystrophy--it can be patented? And does that mean that the consequence of these regulations is that private industry will run away with the profits from what has been widely advertised as being publicly-funded research?
	Thirdly, touching again on a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish--whether or not the regulations gold-plate the European position--how do the regulations fit in with the European patent position? I had understood that the European Parliament overturned the Commission's proposals to allow patenting of genome sequences. How do the regulations impact on that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the points being made, though some of them become a little bit recherche.
	The most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was as to whether or not, as alleged by his correspondent, the regulations go further than the European directive. I can give him a categorical assurance that the regulations in fact copy precisely the terms of the directive. There is no gold-plating and no deviation from the directive's test.
	I can confirm also that the British Society of Plant Breeders was consulted and expressed its views. As I have already said, in due course those views will be made public. But the fundamental point I have to make to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is that his point does not apply to Articles 1 to 11 of the directive, which is all that is being implemented by this order; it applies to Article 12, which is to be dealt with in the future by negative resolution rather than by this affirmative resolution. It will be dealt with under the Patents and Plant Variety Rights Compulsory Licensing Provisions 2000, which have not yet been laid, and discussions with plant breeders are ongoing. There is still an opportunity therefore for the correspondent of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to make his views known to officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Patent Office, to make sure that his point is fully considered. So nothing is lost by these regulations.
	In relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the European Parliament turned down an earlier version of the directive, but this version was approved by all the authorities from whom it needed approval. The regulations do not change the position of farmers and their home-grown seeds. There is a derogation from patent rights in any case for small farmers, and I guess that that will apply also to horticulturists.
	As I believe I said in my opening remarks, the patenting of the genome sequence is not changed by this regulation; it is only an invention, not a discovery, which can be patented under patent law. As I understand it, what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was describing would fall into the category of a discovery rather than an invention. There is no proposal from the Commission for patenting the genome sequence. I hope that I have answered the points raised. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this order extends the system of strict liability to include primary agricultural products. It is made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and is a product liability modification order. It extends the system of strict liability to include primary agricultural products and game--that is, food in its raw state. Food that has undergone some form of processing is already included.
	The change means that under the strict liability system, as for other products, anyone injured by food sold in its raw state will now be able to sue the producer for damages without having to prove the producer negligent. However, the injured party must be able to prove that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. Producers in this context include farmers, food and vegetable growers and fisheries. The provision also includes importers of these products from non-EU countries. Other suppliers, such as wholesalers and retailers, would be liable only if they failed to identify the producer or their own supplier to an injured person.
	The purpose of the order is to implement Directive 1999/34/EC, which amends the 1985 Product Liability Directive. This will be achieved by amending Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which transposes the 1985 directive in UK law. This order is made under Section 8 of the 1987 Act which provides for modification of the Act following any modification of the 1985 directive. The order will apply to England and Wales only. Under devolution, separate arrangements will be made in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The new measure will come into force on 4th December 2000 and, therefore, the change will apply only to primary agricultural products put on the market on or after that date.
	I believe that this is a further small but important step towards improving consumer protection in the all-important area of food safety. An added benefit of the amendment is that it sweeps away any confusion over which food products are covered by strict liability, as all food is now covered.
	The original 1985 Product Liability Directive allowed member states to decide whether or not to include food sold in its raw state. At the time of the directive, concern was expressed that food in its raw state might be more prone to have hidden defects caused by environmental factors beyond the control of the producer. Moreover, due to bulk mixing of food products in their raw state--for example, in cereals--it was felt that there might be a particular problem in tracing the source of the product fault. In practice, these difficulties could happen to other products that are already covered by the original directive, so this brings into question why producers of food in its raw state should be given special treatment.
	Experience of the directive has shown that few problems have arisen in this area. Four countries--namely, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg and Greece--chose to include food in its raw state at the time of implementing the original directive and have reported no apparent problems. Further, the concerns that the directive would lead to excessively high insurance costs have proved to be unfounded. The only significant costs that arise are those of insurance. During our consultation exercise, we discovered that at least 75 per cent of farmers and growers--the vast majority--already have product liability insurance, as do most fish and shellfish producers. Therefore, I am convinced that this is a small price to pay for helping to restore further public confidence in food safety, which, in turn, will be to the ultimate benefit of producers as well as consumers. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall be a good deal briefer in my remarks on this order. However, I shall, first, reiterate my point about the Explanatory Note. It is a bit more of an explanation in this case, but that is only because of the brevity of the order. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that there has been no gold plating in respect of this order? Thirdly, as I read the Explanatory Note, I see that "game" is included. Therefore, this coming winter, after the 4th December, if I buy a pheasant and break one of my teeth on a bit of shot remaining in it, will I be able to sue the poultryman who sold it to me?

Lord Razzall: My Lords, as noble Lords may anticipate, I shall inevitably take a slightly different approach to that adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Clearly the Minister will share my view that consumer protection is a natural field of authority for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. While the Minister is answering the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as to whether this order gold plates the directive, and bearing in mind the importance of this issue for consumers, could he confirm that he is satisfied that the order fully implements Directive 1999/34/EC?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by answering the easy questions. There is no gold plating. The order strictly reflects the requirements of the directive. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, acknowledged, the order is so short that it would be rather difficult to employ any gold plating.
	On the issue of shot in game, I should remind the noble Lord that it has always been reasonable to expect that shot game will contain fragments of shot. Therefore, it is unlikely that such products would be deemed to be defective on that account. In any case, when one is buying from butchers--I buy from a registered game dealer in my suburb of London--it is always declared that there is a risk that game may include lead shot. That would remove, or discharge, any difficulty as regards a defect.
	I said at the beginning of my introduction that nothing before 4th December, the implementation date, would be included under these provisions. However, I should like to reconsider the position because I believe the situation to be slightly more complicated. I know that I was not asked about it, but I should like to think about it and write to both noble Lords on that point. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2000

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when we discussed vaccine damage payments on 28th June, I said that we hoped that the new £100,000 payments would be in place before the Summer Recess. We have acted quickly in bringing this order before your Lordships' House tonight, and it will be debated in another place tomorrow. There will, therefore, be the minimum of delay before the new rate becomes effective.
	The draft order increases the amount of payment under Section 1 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act to £100,000 for claims made on or after the date that it comes into force. The intention to make this increase was announced on 27th June by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security in a Statement made in another place.
	The change introduced by the order, and the other proposed changes that were announced, do not represent any change of judgment about the safety of vaccination. They simply reflect our view that it is right and proper that a more generous regime be introduced in this area. The Government will have effectively increased the rate of payment that we inherited by £70,000. This is a significant increase and is far removed from the previous increases made to the payment which broadly only reflected changes in the retail prices index.
	We have also listened to the concerns of those parents who received £10,000 in the early 1980s. They have struggled daily under difficult circumstances, devoting their lives to the care and support of their often grievously disabled children. Were we to do nothing, they would have been treated far less generously than anyone claiming after this order comes into force. That would be not only unfair, but also unjust. We have therefore decided that it would be only right in this unusual circumstance to make top-up payments to bring past recipients up to a real terms equivalent of the new £100,000 rate.
	The coming into force of this order is a necessary prerequisite to the making of these payments. The order does not directly provide for the top-up payments which will be made under the Appropriation Act, but clearly until a new higher rate is in force there is no benchmark against which revalued previous payments can be topped-up. Parents are eagerly anticipating these additional payments and we want to start making them as soon as possible. We aim to make the first payments in August.
	In our debate on 28th June my noble friend Lord Brennan asked if a nominated office would have the task of dealing with queries that parents might have. The vaccine damage payments unit of the Benefits Agency in Preston will deal with all these cases. It is a small unit, although we are providing it with additional resources for the efficient discharge of this exercise, and it can be contacted by phone, fax or e-mail. The numbers are known to the various parents' groups and we shall be making them generally known. I shall be happy to provide them to noble Lords.
	Once Parliament has approved this order, those recipients who received £10,000 in the past will receive an additional lump sum payment of £67,000. Those who received £20,000 will receive £62,500. Those who received £30,000 will receive £61,500 and those who received £40,000 will receive a further £58,000. This represents an additional £60 million for the most severely disabled, a very significant sum. These payments will be treated like the original payments for the purposes of income related benefits. They are placed in trusts and as such will not disentitle recipients of those benefits.
	We have also thought about those families whose vaccine damaged children have sadly died since the original payment was made. They, too, devoted time and effort to the care of their children prior to the child's death, and they too have made sacrifices, financial and otherwise, along the way. We believe that it would be unfair to exclude them from these arrangements, and therefore top-up payments will also be made to those families.
	We also intend to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act to bring about changes to the time limits for claiming and to the disability threshold. However, as I explained on 28th June, this requires primary legislation and will necessarily be on a longer time-scale. But it is not an issue that we are prepared to let lie and we shall take action to bring about these changes at the earliest available opportunity.
	The main provisions of new legislation would be to introduce new, more generous time limits for claiming which will allow affected children to submit a claim at any time up to their 21st birthday; to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent to 60 per cent; and to introduce an element of retrospection so that those people who previously claimed and were rejected under the old provisions--for example, they had between 60 and 80 per cent disability--but would have succeeded had the new rules then been in force are given the opportunity to reclaim and have that claim considered afresh.
	The latter point applies to both the time limits and the disability threshold. In response to questions following his Statement in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid the situation in which someone who would qualify now is barred because of the old rules. I believe that this is a welcome proposal and equitable to those who have been previously disallowed. I am sure that it will also be welcomed by noble Lords who will appreciate how unusual it is for retrospection to be introduced in such matters.
	Government have also been looking at improving provision for all people with severe disabilities. We have had regard to the range of benefits and support available to severely disabled people however their condition was caused, and from 2001 we shall introduce a disability income guarantee and make changes to the mobility component of disability living allowance and to incapacity benefit. These changes can equally benefit vaccine damaged children and adults.
	On 28th June noble Lords on all sides of this House welcomed the changes to vaccine damage payments. There were some questions of detail that I hope I addressed. No doubt others may arise when we bring forward primary legislation. But for the moment we are concerned with the first brick in the wall, introducing the new £100,000 payment with which this order is exclusively concerned. From this the other changes will flow.
	I am sure your Lordships would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the campaigning groups which have been active in keeping the issue of vaccine damage in the public eye. These include the British Polio Fellowship and JABS. In particular I pay tribute to Rosemary Fox, of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, and to Olivier Price, of the Vaccine Victims Support Group. They, with the help of their members, have been rightly tireless in their determination to seek enhancements to the scheme. As parents of children in difficult circumstances, they have none the less campaigned selflessly on behalf of others. As I say, I hope and expect that we shall return as soon as we can with appropriate legislation to complete the package. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the promptness with which the Government have brought the order forward. The substantive issues which stem from it were debated on 28th June when we considered the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I shall not therefore take up the time of the House with unnecessary repetition.
	I have two questions for the Minister. First, she mentioned that one of the elements of the Government's announcement last month was that those people who have in the past received lump sum payments will now be entitled to top-up payments to put them on an equal footing with new claimants. Will the Minister say when that retrospective part of the package will be put in place? Will she confirm my understanding that further regulations will be needed to achieve that?
	Secondly, I refer to the other two improvements to the scheme; that is to say, the reduction in the disability threshold and the lifting of the six-year limit for making claims. As the Minister has just confirmed, both those changes will require primary legislation. Will the Minister be more forthcoming about that legislation? Of course I understand that she cannot pre-empt the Gracious Speech. However, it would be reassuring to hear her say that it represents a high priority for her department.
	I reiterate my welcome for the order which will undoubtedly bring with it considerable relief for victims of vaccine damage, for whom we all have the utmost sympathy, as well as for the families who look after them.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome what the Minister said. I associate myself strongly with her acknowledgement of the role played by the parents' groups in a long campaign. Despite the length of the campaign and the slowness of the review, I welcome the fact that the regulations have been brought before both Houses with such speed.
	As the Minister pointed out, we had an extensive debate--I describe it as extensive and robust--which aired a number of points. I welcome the additional detail the Minister has provided today. I understand rather better how the Appropriation Act operates in these circumstances. I did not understand how this measure would achieve retrospection, but now I think I do. That is helpful.
	The Minister responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with regard to a nominated office. I believe that the families concerned will be reassured to know that they can get in touch with the vaccine damage payments unit in Preston if they need to. That is a helpful measure. Is the office in Preston--I assume that the staff there have this responsibility--making good progress in identifying those to whom top-up payments should be made? I hope that as soon as the measures under the Appropriation Act are implemented, those who are eligible will be written to quickly. The Minister made the point in our debate on 28th June that all their names and addresses were not known. I hope that that matter can be rectified with some speed.
	I second what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about the primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will say that this is a priority for her department. Whether or not her department wishes to introduce the matter during the spill-over or after the Queen's Speech, we on these Benches will give every possible co-operation in terms of making sure that it speeds its way through this House. The issues raised by the primary legislation in terms of the threshold and the time limits are extremely important and we very much want to see them on the statute book.
	I shall not repeat what I said on 28th June. However, I wish to raise one issue as I do not feel that the Minister quite answered my question about whether the Government are working to secure more substantial compensation--I use the word "compensation" and not "payment" advisedly--for those damaged by vaccines. Is this change in the VDP scheme--as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, hoped--a first step? Do the Government feel that they have now discharged their duty to the unfortunate victims? Or will they now consider introducing strict liability for vaccine damage as recommended by Pearson so long ago in 1978? Further to that, will the Government engage in further discussions with the pharmaceutical industry?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am obviously delighted that both Opposition Benches welcome the order and the speed with which the Government have approached the matter. I am sure that, like everyone else, they will be cheering when the parents get their first cheques, probably in August, but as soon as possible.
	As to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, retrospection relates to the threshold and the time limit changes. That is why primary legislation is needed. The top-up payments to current and former holders of payments can be made without the need for legislation. So the question does not arise and further regulations are not an issue.
	The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether I could give a date for primary legislation. I am sure they will understand the difficulty I am in; we shall not see primary legislation this side of the Queen's Speech. But it is important to the Government that we complete the rest of the programme. Subject to any other decisions, I hope that we will see legislation as soon as possible in the not too distant future.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about the difficulties of locating people who do not necessarily know that they are entitled to these payments. He is absolutely right. That is why we want the unit at Preston identified and why we want to achieve as much publicity as possible through the organisations. I hope also that we shall be able to call on the press--particularly the campaign led by the Daily Express--to encourage parents who may not be aware of their rights to come forward. One of the difficulties obviously is that some vaccine damaged children are 30 years old; their parents may have moved home several times and we may have lost track of their records. Anything the media can do to help publicise their right to claim would be very welcome.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, picked up on the issue that, to some extent, he ran with when we discussed the matter on 28th June. He asked whether there will be more substantial compensation to individuals. We regard this legislation as producing a just recognition of the difficulties that families face in meeting some of the additional costs that arise with a vaccine damaged child. It is not strictly compensation. Compensation suggests some admission of liability, and I certainly do not wish to suggest that. It is some contribution to the recognised financial and emotional costs that these families and children incur.
	We, as a Government, are not proposing to go beyond that and to engage in litigation with companies or any such further proposals. Indeed, we do not share the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the companies are in any sense negligent in terms of their behaviour; nor does the research suggest in any way--for example, with the MMR vaccine, which I think is the one that particularly concerns the noble Lord--that there is any cause or connection between those inoculations and any of the illnesses (autism or bowel disease) that have been suggested as being correlated with it.
	For those reasons--the fact that we do not believe that the vaccine (in the MMR cases in particular) was at fault, and the fact that there is no evidence that there is any physical connection between the illnesses subsequently (and, in some cases, almost before the jabs took place) being experienced by the children and the vaccination itself--we do not feel that it is appropriate to talk the language of negligence, liability or suing companies for compensation. That will not be the Government's route.
	Obviously, both the limits and any other areas in which it is appropriate to help vaccine damaged children will, as always, be kept under review. I am not trying to shut the door on this matter, but we believe that by going for an increase from £30,000 in 1997 to £100,000 now the Government are honourably meeting some of the costs that families have. It should not be forgotten that families with vaccine damaged children continue to have access to a full range of benefits, which, were they to be amortised into capital, would be effectively a quite substantial sum.
	That is the Government's position. We shall be coming forward to your Lordships' House with legislation to complete the picture as soon as we appropriately can to ensure that children who have received vaccine damage, particularly through the polio jab, get the compensation and the help they are entitled to. We hope that this will make a useful and decent difference to their families' lives. With that, I ask your Lordships to accept the draft order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2000

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, this is an order which will be made under Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998. It is the third of its kind. Two extensive orders were made under this power last year ahead of devolution.
	Section 105 enables existing enactments or instruments to be amended as necessary in consequence of the Scotland Act. Given the wide implications of devolution, it was impractical to make provision at the time for every modification of every enactment necessary as a result of that Act. Section 105 enables further modifications to be made as the need arises.
	This order deals with all the examples identified over the past year where a consequential modification is necessary. In some cases this has simply been a matter of realising that a power which may have to be exercised at some point in the future has not been adapted to work properly where it has been devolved to Scottish Ministers. In one or two cases the need to exercise a power has been identified and the provisions in this order are intended to enable devolved powers to be exercised or exercised more effectively. There are also examples where the purpose is to include statutory bodies set up by Acts of the Scottish Parliament within the effects of UK legislation on, for example, disability discrimination.
	A number of the entries relate to the procedure in the Scottish Parliament for devolved secondary legislation subject to affirmative resolution procedure, particularly where the statute requires the approval to be obtained within a certain number of days. As matters stand before the current order, largely as a result of different terminology between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, there are cases where the period allowed for parliamentary scrutiny continues to run during the parliamentary Recess. This means that an order can fall because the Scottish Parliament has not been sitting to pass the required affirmative resolutions. The current order puts the Scottish Parliament procedure on a similar basis to that obtaining here in that the clock marking the period within which affirmative resolutions are required will stop ticking during recess.
	Another entry relating to subordinate legislation procedure is that for the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 10 of that Act provides for Ministers to make remedial orders where statutory provisions are found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be possible for these orders to be made in relation to devolved matters by the Scottish Ministers. Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act regulates the parliamentary procedure for these orders. That procedure is more complex than the usual statutory instrument procedures. Section 118 of the Scotland Act does not do all that is necessary to translate the parliamentary procedure for these orders so that it operates correctly in the Scottish Parliament. A similar procedure for deregulation orders in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was amended by an earlier order under Section 105.
	Another group of entries in the order extend references to the term "enactment" so that they include references to Acts of the Scottish Parliament where that is necessary. The general rule is that references to "enactment" in Acts of the UK Parliament do not include Acts of the Scottish Parliament or instruments made under Acts of the Scottish Parliament. But in some cases it is desirable that references to "enactment" should include Acts of the Scottish Parliament so that this Parliament's Act operates properly. Amendments of that type have been made to the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act.
	Noble Lords will perhaps be relieved that I do not intend to go into the detail of each entry in the order. There are some 23 modifications. However, if noble Lords have questions on any specific entries I will be happy to assist. I hope noble Lords will have no difficulty in supporting the order, which is aimed at the effective operation of this Parliament's pre-existing legislation in Scotland following devolution. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for what I am sure, when I read it, will be a very clear explanation of what the order does. I am bound to say that until she spoke I found it extremely difficult to follow. As I listened, some points were cleared up and probably more will be cleared in my mind when I have read what she said. But I should like to put in a plea--it follows from what my noble friend said earlier--about the Explanatory Note. It is very difficult to know from the Explanatory Note what is happening. The Explanatory Note simply repeats what the order itself says. In fact it is very difficult from that to know what to do, because I think I am right in saying that the order amends 21 Acts of Parliament. Am I supposed, as a humble, simple Back-Bench Peer, to look up 21 Acts and see precisely what happens in each case in so far as concerns the law affecting Scotland? If there is a common thread running through all the changes in those 21 Acts, it would have been helpful to have a paragraph explaining precisely what that change was. I trust the noble Baroness and assume that that is precisely what is happening. But next time an order similar to this is before the House I hope that she will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide a rather fuller explanation. That would be enormously helpful.
	Paragraph 21 of the order relates to the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Baroness referred. Do I understand that that Act, which was passed only in 1998, is being altered simply to meet the existing situation, or will the Scots Parliament alter Acts relating to Scotland once those Acts have been found to be outwith the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act? Is the procedure actually changing? I rather suspect that it is. That it is not going to happen in the House of Commons and the House of Lords any more but in the Scots Parliament. It would be helpful to know whether that is true. I may be misreading that. I am not a lawyer. It is quite difficult for me to follow. That is my main point.
	My other point is whether for years ahead we will go on noticing in the statute book things which require to be changed? What will happen if we notice them after we are required to make the change? Will that not be a problem? What will happen if we come across something in some Act that was passed by Westminster and we find that it simply is not valid because of the existence of the Scots Parliament? There will have to be an immediate order, I suppose, to put that right. I have two questions. First, has the procedure under the Human Rights Act actually changed when legislation which affects Scotland is found to clash with the Human Rights Act? Second, are we going to go on having to change Acts of Parliament and what will happen if we find quite suddenly we have to do that and that the Act is not valid when we come upon the problem?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour about the Explanatory Note. I think the Minister was in her place when I made the point earlier. This one is markedly worse because it does not explain the bulk of the text. That relates, I think my noble friend said, to 21 Acts of Parliament and makes amendments to them. Frankly, choosing at random paragraph 10, without going to the Fisheries Act 1981 one would not have a clue as to what was being done. That is what ought to be explained. The Explanatory Note tells us why things have to be changed. My noble friend and I understand and appreciate that. But what we should have explained to us is what the changes are in each individual paragraph. I wonder if the next time--and there will be a next time--the Minister comes forward with an order under the precommencement powers we will have an Explanatory Note which actually explains what has been changed and why it needs to be changed. I can understand one or two items. Clearly, the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament had to be dealt with by putting in the Scottish Parliament. I can understand that. The recess point I can understand. But the Fisheries Act item, I am afraid, would be quite beyond me unless I went to the Library and looked up the Act of Parliament. That is perhaps asking people to go a bridge too far. I hope the Minister appreciates that. I am not necessarily expecting an answer about the Fisheries Act 1981, but I hope the Minister will take the point away and next time perhaps her officials can actually explain the changes made to the legislation. That is a major point. I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
	My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to paragraph 21. As my noble friend was speaking it occurred to me to question the Minister on the concept of a remedial order. I do not know if the Minister recalls--if she does not, I am happy to have a letter about it--the case recently where a lady was charged with being drunk in charge of a car and had not actually been in a car. She had been walking with an unsteady gait around a supermarket car park. She admitted to having driven the car to the car park. She was charged. However, the case was thrown out because the Road Traffic Act under which she was obliged to admit that she had been the driver of the car was incompatible with the ECHR. The Minister clearly remembers the case. I am a little unsighted about it from thereon in.
	All I remember is that when I asked the question here I was assured that the Lord Advocate was still considering whether to appeal. I am not sure whether he has appealed. Perhaps the Minister can tell me. I think there was some doubt when I asserted that the problem would become larger and might affect speeding cases. Last week I read in the papers that indeed it did affect speeding cases, but south of the Border. It is becoming a very large problem. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to bring forward a remedial order to sort out the Road Traffic Act so that this problem did not occur in Scotland and people who were caught speeding by speed cameras could not get away with it by pleading the ECHR and saying, "I am not going to incriminate myself"?
	I appreciate that that is rather a fast ball to bowl on the basis of the order. But I have known the Minister over many years and I am absolutely confident that she will be able to give me an answer. If my confidence is misplaced, I should be happy to accept some information about these matters in writing.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the former Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Ron Davies, in a telling phrase, said that devolution is a process and not an event. Here today we are seeing another example of that process continuing.
	As a frequent visitor to Scotland, I am heartened to see how the Scottish Parliament is beginning to forge its own character and its own culture in a way that is entirely distinct from Westminster. However, I appreciate the difficulties that it must have when it is faced with the maze of primary and subordinate legislation that already exists. I join in the expressions that have passed from other noble Lords in a desire for clarity. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether there is any proposal to produce in a loose-leaf form the legislation as it has been amended which affects Scotland. It will take a great deal of time for these Acts of Parliament to be amended and published. Many other amendments will need to be made by further consequential orders. As each comes to this House for approval, so it would be helpful if there were some means of bringing it before the legislators who are carrying our their duties in Scotland.
	On the Human Rights Act, it is entirely appropriate that if a breach of the convention is found in Scotland which affects legislation within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, it should be for the Scottish Parliament to put it right. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, if legislation is to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, it will have to comply with the convention. Where a breach of the convention has been found, it will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Parliament will attempt to revert to the previous position, as the noble Lord suggested it might.
	From these Benches, we wholly welcome the production of this order. In the nature of the process, there will be more to come; and we shall welcome them when they arrive.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the order by all three noble Lords who have spoken. I shall try to deal with specific points that were raised.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked about the Explanatory Note and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, echoed her points. There is no reason why Explanatory Notes cannot be longer. The note is intended to be a short, concise statement of the substance and purport of the instrument and one accessible to the layman--that is the very point made by the noble Baroness. The kind of note that is attached to such orders appears to be based on convention. If Parliament were to ask for a different style of note or for fuller notes, there is no obvious reason why that could not be provided. If noble Lords feel that we could learn from the example to which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, unfortunately, is not in his place today, often refers--that the Explanatory Notes attached to papers in the Scottish Parliament are a great deal fuller--I am sure that the relevant authorities in both Houses could take the matter forward rather than it being a matter for the Government or being left to individual Secretaries of State.
	The noble Baroness asked whether there will be a need for further similar orders. In a way, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, almost answered her question by saying that there is almost bound to be such a need. We do not anticipate any orders at the moment, although one can never say never. The wide implications of the devolution settlement mean that we cannot rule out the possibility of further orders. That is why Section 105 of the Scotland Act enables further modifications as the need arises. That is why that section was included in the Scotland Act. However, as I said in my opening remarks, the order is a culmination of a whole year of looking at various examples that came up where legislation was needed. We have now achieved a significant harvest of all the likely necessary actions.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the Human Rights Act. The Scottish Parliament will be able to amend its own Acts to make them comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked whether the Scottish Parliament could amend the Road Traffic Acts. The answer is no. The Scottish Parliament does not have devolved competence on the subject matter of the Road Traffic Acts. The noble Lord referred to a specific case. In lawyers' jargon it is known as Margaret Anderson Brown v. Stott (procurator fiscal). Petitions of appeal have now been lodged with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Advocate General has intervened to represent the United Kingdom interest. I am advised that further discussion of the case could be prejudicial to further legal proceedings. Therefore, I should not take the matter any further.
	I hope that I have dealt with all of the points raised by noble Lords.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that under the Human Rights Act the Scots Parliament will be able to amend its own Acts. I thought that that was the case all along--ever since we legislated two years ago. I wonder whether the Scots Parliament will now be able to amend Acts of the Westminster Parliament which apply to Scotland. That would mean that the provisions of Acts passed by the Scots Parliament would diverge from those which remained at Westminster. Is the Scots Parliament still amending only its own legislation, or is it amending that which applies to Scotland but has been made at Westminster?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as I understand the position, the Scottish Parliament can only amend Acts of its own. It cannot amend Acts passed at Westminster. It is Westminster which will amend Westminster Acts. That is why we have Section 105. It is only with regard to devolved issues that the Scottish Parliament can amend legislation to make it fit the European Convention on Human Rights.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to pursue this point because we need to be clear. I have the Human Rights Act in my hand. I am trying to see what precisely paragraph 21 does. The noble Baroness referred to devolved matters, but a good deal of Westminster legislation applies to devolved matters which are now the responsibility of the Scots Parliament. Can those pieces of legislation be amended by the Scots Parliament? If not, I cannot see why this provision is there.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I believe that an answer to the noble Baroness's question may lie in the fact that this particular consequential modification order is precisely the kind of order that would be brought forward if there was found to be a breach of the Human Rights Act. The primary legislation of this Parliament would be amended by means of an order of this kind. That seems to me to be the sensible way of approaching this. It would not be necessary to return to the original Act of Parliament which has been said to be in breach in order to make the changes.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is the case. I do not know whether I have made matters worse or better for the noble Baroness, but Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides for the making of remedial orders where statutory provisions are found to be incompatible with the ECHR. It would be possible for these orders to be made in relation to devolved matters by Scottish Ministers or Her Majesty in Council by Order in Council on the recommendation of the First Minister.
	Schedule 2 regulates the parliamentary procedure for these orders. It regulates the parliamentary procedure for the orders in relation to the 21 Acts. Section 118 of the Scotland Act does not do all that is necessary to translate the parliamentary procedure for these orders so that it operates correctly in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that has helped to clarify matters.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is most helpful and I hope that my noble friend is satisfied. However, one point has occurred to me. I understand that any legislation passed by this Parliament in the past affecting a devolved matter which is found to be in breach must be changed by the Scottish Parliament. My question is rather difficult, and I do not believe that I received a full answer from the Government when we debated the devolution legislation. I shall try again, having been reminded of the matter.
	What happens if the Scottish Parliament declines? I understand that the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention and it would be the UK that would be in breach. If the Scottish Parliament declined, would the UK Parliament take the matter into its own hands and proceed to amend the legislation?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord has suggested an extremely hypothetical situation and I do not intend to answer it. However, should the noble Lord wish to take expert opinion on it, I shall do so on his behalf and write to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill

House again in Committee (on Recommitment).
	Clause 178 [Local licensing schemes]:
	[Amendments Nos. 240A to 242 not moved.]
	Clause 178 agreed to.
	Clauses 179 and 180 agreed to.
	Clause 181 [Workplace parking places]:
	[Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 247A:
	Page 108, line 44, at end insert (", or
	( ) a member of the public").

Lord Berkeley: I should like to move Amendment No. 247A, which by nature is a probing amendment. It continues with a theme established in earlier amendments that there should be a minimum number of exceptions to any rules covering workplace parking
	On reading the clause, there appears to be some difficulty in achieving a simple solution as regards which workplace parking locations are to be covered and who will be "relevant persons". Can my noble friend tell me whether city centre car parks--multi-storey or otherwise--owned by local authorities or private car park companies would be covered? Similarly, will out-of-town supermarket car parks be so covered? Those are only two examples. It is clear that both of these forms of parking facilities contribute significantly to traffic generation in the same way as office car parking.
	Can my noble friend explain whether public car parks and supermarket car parks are covered? If not, why not? As I have said, this is a probing amendment. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am relieved to hear that my noble friend has tabled this as a probing amendment. However, it concerns an important issue; namely, the scope of the workplace parking levy.
	Our response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, made it clear that we intend that the levy will apply to workplace parking only. That is because our most serious congestion problems are associated with peak period commuting to work.
	I accept what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said; namely, that customer parking provided for the public at retail and leisure facilities or in public car parks can contribute to local congestion, both in town centres and in other areas. However, the effects are not usually concentrated in peak periods, unlike the effect of people driving to work. The Government are not persuaded that a levy on non-workplace parking is the most effective way of changing customer travel patterns.
	We have said that we shall be looking to major retail and leisure operators to work with local authorities to build on the initiatives that some major retailers have already taken to tackle over-dependency on the car. These could include providing bus shelters, funding bus priority measures on the surrounding road network and providing secure cycle parking. Retail outlets could extend or introduce easy and affordable home delivery services.
	I can assure my noble friend that we expect real progress to be made in this area. We have asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to consider the case for changing the scope of the levy; I think that it would be best to wait for the commission's recommendations before taking a final decision on extending the scope of the parking levy. This approach will also provide greater flexibility in deciding how any legislation for a levy on customer parking might be drafted.
	The amendment would extend the definition of "relevant person" to include members of the public. This would mean that parking at a premises by a member of the public would fall within the scope of the levy, but only if it still passed the test at the end of Clause 181(1), which the amendment would not change, of,
	"for attending a place at which the relevant person [or member of the public] carries on business".
	Changing the definition of "relevant person" as provided by the amendment will not extend the scope of the levy to include customer parking.
	I do not believe that the levy should apply to members of the public for the reasons that I have outlined. I therefore hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend has quite rightly pointed out the deficiencies of drafting in my amendment. I am sorry that the Government are not taking this opportunity to put in place powers to extend levies to supermarket and other parking facilities, perhaps to be implemented only later. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 247B and 247C not moved.]
	Clause 181 agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 247D:
	After Clause 181, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:LICENSING SCHEME: COMPENSATION FOR COSTS
	(" .--(1) A licensing scheme under this Part shall make provision for compensation to cover costs in implementing such a scheme.
	(2) Where levies are imposed under section 177(2)(a) and (b) the occupier of the premises or specified person shall be entitled to appeal to the licensing authority for compensation for the cost of implementing and managing any such scheme.
	(3) Compensation shall include--
	(a) the cost of advertising the scheme on the premises or in the vicinity;
	(b) the cost of any equipment installed to manage or implement the scheme; and
	(c) the cost of implementing any changes to a licensing scheme.
	(4) Any consultation carried out under section 184 shall include information about any proposed compensation, or not, which forms part of a proposed scheme or varying of a scheme under this Part.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Not among the least of the joys of sitting on this side of the Committee--with which noble Lords sitting opposite will be all too familiar and to which we shall render them once again in due course--is the freedom to exercise a certain intellectual anarchy. That is a real bonus, although I miss the discipline of constructive thought.
	The point behind making those introductory remarks was to enable me to approach a subject from a number of different angles. Occasionally, as is the case with the amendment before the Committee, I seek to try to help the Government.
	The purpose of the amendment is to make it easier for a local transport authority to introduce a workplace parking scheme. Generally speaking, the target of such a scheme is not the occupier of the premises who will have to pay the charge but the person who drives to work. We have the wonderful concept of a new tax that will be imposed on one person in order to affect someone else. I find that slightly interesting.
	The amendment would make it possible for a local transport authority to say to an employer in its district that, because it is intended that the charge should fall on those who drive to work, it will provide at the entrance to the firm's car park either credit card operated gates or cash operated gates, or that employees can purchase a monthly licence, or whatever. It would enable an authority to pay for the installations and subsequently take the money and do the accounting.
	It is not my business to make the charges more palatable or acceptable. It is my belief that they will prove to be pretty unpalatable and that the government may reap the benefit of their being unacceptable. This amendment might help that process, which I should welcome.
	It is a serious point. If the target of the workplace parking levy is the person who drives to work and not the person who occupies the premises and runs the business, it may be worthwhile considering a concession on the face of the Bill under which a local transport authority is enabled to put in the necessary infrastructure so that the actual target, rather than the legislative target, is the person affected by the introduction of the charges. That would probably help the Government forward greatly. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an interesting interpretation. As it was the noble Lord who brought the amendments forward, he is entitled to his own interpretation. It is not quite what the amendments say. As I read them, they are about compensation to the owner of the premises. There is reference to a specified person, but no reference to the circumstances in which such a person would be specified; there is no regulatory power to specify a person in terms of the cost of implementing and managing any such scheme. That could apply, whether or not the charge was made on the occupier of the premises or the individual car driver occupying a car parking space. Read literally, the amendment is neutral as to whether the charge is paid by the car driver or the employer. Be that as it may, it is an interesting argument in either case.
	It is also the case, I am afraid, that the amendment as drafted would mean that there would be nothing to stop the person responsible for paying the workplace parking levy seeking compensation for the actual cost of paying the workplace parking charges. In other words, you pay the charge and you get it back in compensation, which would rather nullify the whole procedure. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, thinks that that is a very good idea. Noble Lords might well have pressed on with opposing the Question that Clause 177 shall stand part.
	There is a serious point behind the amendment that I want to address, whoever will ultimately pay the charge. It is the question of keeping the burden of administrative costs to business to a minimum. We are seized of that; we do want to minimise the administrative burden.
	The levy will simply require the occupier of a premises or any other person who may be prescribed to apply to the licensing authority for a licence to cover workplace parking needs. The cost involved in handling licence applications, issuing licences and enforcement schemes will be met by the licensing authorities from the gross revenues raised by the workplace parking levy. That means that the only administrative burden placed on businesses will be the requirement to estimate the workplace parking needs and to submit the licence application. In most cases that will be fairly obvious and it should be a straightforward task. But at larger premises, as may be imagined, the number of parking spaces is not the right measure--because parking spaces can be laid out tightly or loosely. Occasional inspections may be necessary in order to see how many people were there at the peak, which is the test used in the Bill; and in certain circumstances there might be an electronic gantry at the car park entrance to count workplace vehicles in and out. It might be to the advantage of the employer to do that.
	I should emphasise that licensing authorities have no powers to insist that businesses install and pay for any equipment that is used for counting vehicles. So compliance costs in all these matters are, by definition, met by businesses. Local authorities do not meet the cost imposed on businesses when businesses satisfy demands for the payment of rates. We do not believe that businesses should be able to claim compensation from licensing authorities for complying with workplace parking levy schemes.

Lord Dixon-Smith: As so often, the Minister has been extremely helpful in responding to the amendment. One of the reasons for tabling it is that discussions have taken place about this kind of issue. In one or two places, people considering whether or not to introduce a scheme have held discussions with employers to see whether things can be done to make the imposition of the charges more acceptable or more administratively possible.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: None of that is ruled out by anything in the Bill. I merely made clear that nothing is imposed.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have to be careful about what is imposed, compelled, left out or not permitted.
	I am grateful to the Minister because I suspect that when I read his reply I will find that he has enabled me to devise a better amendment. It would be surprising if that were not the case because he has done precisely that himself in the past. I will need to consider carefully all that has been said but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 182 agreed to.
	Clause 183 agreed to.
	Clause 184 [Licensing schemes: consultation and inquiries]:
	[Amendments Nos. 248 to 259 not moved.]
	Clause 184 agreed to.
	Clause 185 [Matters to be dealt with in licensing schemes]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 260:
	Page 112, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 185 deals with the contents of licensing schemes and licences. Subsection(4) states:
	"In setting the charges imposed by a licensing scheme under this Part, regard may be had to the purposes for which any of the net proceeds of the licensing scheme may be applied".
	Regard "may" be had? Everything the Government have said reinforces that regard to the purposes shall be had if not must be had. We are back to the wretched business of the meaning of words. The Minister who replies will doubtless say that this is one of those wonderful occasions when "may" means "must". The problem for us ordinary mortals is that we have difficulty understanding when "may" means "must" and when it means "may". That may be pedantic but it is an important point. If regard is not paid to the purposes to which the money will be applied, the public will rightly be angry. I am sure that is not what the Government intend and it would not be helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The issue is not the word "may", "must", "shall" or "should" but whether we should highlight this aspect of a plan from others. Of course schemes will raise revenue but that is probably less than half the story. The introduction of charges will also have an effect on traffic levels, congestion, pollution and delays.
	Under the amendment, local authorities would be required to have regard to the purposes for which the net proceeds were to be spent. That provision is, at best, unnecessary. Schedule 12 already provides that local authorities will be required to prepare plans setting out how net revenues from charges will be spent. If that provision is highlighted elsewhere, it could be interpreted as meaning that the emphasis when setting charge levels must be on funding local transport improvements rather than tackling congestion. We do not want to risk giving the impression that we are precluding local authorities from setting charges geared primarily to tackle traffic congestion that have as a side benefit the funding of transport improvements.
	Clause 185(4) was drafted to make it possible for local authorities to set charges and so raise revenue to fund local transport improvement, and that is why "may" is used in this context. Charges should not be set only on that basis. I remind the noble Lord that as a condition for the approval of individual schemes by the Secretary of State there must be full consultation on the detail. No doubt that will also focus on those matters on which the money is to be spent. The amendment would reduce the flexibility of local authorities. We want to give them the right to design and implement schemes which can best deliver transport objectives which suit their local circumstances. I hope the noble Lord recognises that to pick out this item when the requirement is already available elsewhere along with other requirements is not helpful and may give the wrong signals.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I almost regret the Minister's response. I suspect that he has set me a dreadfully large amount of homework to verify the facts of the case. The difficulty is that we are dealing with the meaning of words in the English language. As to the relative importance of particular bits of this Bill and unheard of and unseen regulations--even worse, guidance--the position may well be as the Minister says. I shall do my best to check it. If I have a cold towel round my head and appear wan, as the Minister is wont to do on occasions, people will understand how that comes about. I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 185 agreed to.
	Clause 186 [Licensing schemes: exemptions etc.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 261 and 261A not moved.]
	Clause 186 agreed to.
	Clause 187 [Licences]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 262:
	Page 113, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Dixon-Smith: If I have read it correctly, as drafted the Bill provides that workplace parking levy licences should last for not more than 12 months. I am open to correction, but I believe that that is how the provision is drafted. That is slightly strange. I see no reason why it should not last for two years, five years or 10 years. My driving licence, which I have held for a number of years, does not expire until I am 70. I am immensely grateful to DVLA, or whoever was responsible for the regulation, for making it possible for me to avoid the need to reapply for my driving licence every year. I suspect that if I had to do so I would lose it. There are licences and licences. To put the opposite case, I am aware that a television licence lasts for only 12 months.
	In this case we are considering, among other things, the confidence of those who have to pay this levy. It may well be that in particular circumstances they prefer the licence to last for longer than 12 months. After all, if it lasts for only 12 months there is nothing to prevent the local transport authority at the end of the period saying that it intends to raise the levy by 10 per cent. Some may regard that as an unreasonable proposition; others may believe that it is acceptable. I do not think that that is reasonable. If in arriving at a scheme an authority wishes to create licences which last for a period longer than 12 months I believe that it should have the ability to do so, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
	Amendment No. 263 deals with variations of a licence. While it is a very small point, it is a matter of good business practice. The amendment requires applications for a variation in a licence to be heard within 30 days. I do not know whether that is an achievable target, but it should be. The reality is that across the country there may well be many businesses whose car parks have a capacity much greater than will ever be required under normal circumstances. Unless one has a very brutal system in which the licence is calculated on the basis of the maximum capacity, it may well be that there will be spare capacity. A car park with a capacity of, say, 1,000 spaces may have a licence for only 900.
	Business circumstances change and it may be that an employer will want to increase his capacity because of expansion. It is not then unreasonable that the application should be heard within a reasonable timescale. I am not adamant that 30 is the appropriate number of days but if the Minister would accept the principle of what is intended to be a helpful amendment and return with another figure or an adjusted amendment, I should be delighted. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have sympathy with Amendment No. 262. It would be helpful if in reply the Minister could tell us why any limit has been introduced and why it is one year.

Lord Whitty: There appears to be some confusion. We are dealing with a licensing system, which means that some people are charged for their parking places. It is not a direct or indirect form of parking control in the sense the noble Lord implies.
	The effect of Amendment No. 262 would be to remove the condition that a licence cannot be granted for more than a year. Our intention is to safeguard business by ensuring that the licensing authority cannot require a business to take out and pay for a licence for several years at once. Amendment No. 262 would remove that protection.
	Amendment No. 263--and here the confusion arises--proposes,
	"within 30 days or will be deemed to be granted".
	I shall explain what I mean by the provision not being a parking control. The Bill does not allow authorities discretion over the number of vehicles covered by a licence, or whether a licence will be given. If an employer asks for and pays for a licence for 100 people, 100 vehicles will be covered by the licence. If the employer subsequently expands, as the noble Lord suggests, and asks for a further 50 that, too, must be granted. There is no discretion on local authorities as to whether they should grant or not, or whether when the year is ended they should renew or not.
	We are seeking a price effect, not a rationing effect, and therefore there is a misunderstanding behind the amendments. The first would remove the safeguard for business and the second is unnecessary.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Will the Minister deal with the point suggested by my suspicious nature. A licence which lasts only for one year can be renewed the next year for the same number of vehicles but at a different charge.

Lord Whitty: That is always possible. It is also open to the employer to reduce the number of cars if the new charge is not acceptable to him. That, in a sense, is the point.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are entering interesting territory. My noble friend points out that it is also possible for a business to decide to move to a different location. That might be an unforeseen consequence. The law of unforeseen consequence is universal and arises with monotonous regularity. Businesses do not have to relocate in this country, so the unforeseen consequences could have a degree of unpleasantness that none of us would want.
	I shall study what the Minister said. There ought to be a position somewhere between the shaky quicksand on which he is standing and the more solid quicksand on which I am standing. They are both quicksands, but there ought to be a point at which there is an acceptable solution to the dilemma. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
	Clause 187 agreed to.
	Clauses 188 and 189 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 263A not moved.]

Lord Lea of Crondall: moved Amendment No. 263B:
	Before Clause 190, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:GREEN TRANSPORT PLANS
	(" . Local authorities shall promote the drawing up by employers of Green Transport Plans and stipulate that these are discussed at an early stage with employees and their representatives.").

Lord Lea of Crondall: Amendments Nos. 263A and 263B were originally written together and I believe that they hang together in a certain way. However, Amendment No. 263B adds a highly practical dimension in saying that, in the context of introducing either of the charges, local authorities should,
	"promote the drawing up by employers of Green Transport Plans and stipulate that these are discussed at an early stage with employees and their representatives".
	In other words, the congestion charge and the workplace levy would be brought forward by firms in the context of green transport plans.
	I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier was totally wrong when he said that the effect of the new charges will be not only to provide a means of paying for public transport; they will change people's behaviour. It is obvious that that is what we are doing: through the price mechanism, we are changing people's behaviour. When, for example, one puts up the price of strawberries, the result is that fewer people eat strawberries. I do not believe that I need to tell anyone that that is how price mechanisms work. That was the contention in the preliminary discussion which led up to the White Paper.
	Be that as it may, it is employees who are being called upon to change their behaviour. It is they who in many cases will pay the congestion charges and I suspect that, in one way or another, in many cases they will pay for the workplace levy as well.
	I part company with the dire predictions of the Official Opposition but I believe that these two measures will come as a shock to many firms. I believe that trade union support for them, which we have been developing, will be a vital part of their reception. This type of issue is on the agenda of a trade union and sustainable development advisory committee, chaired jointly by Michael Meacher and John Edmonds.
	I believe that it is fair to say that very little has happened so far with regard to green transport plans. There have been some notable exceptions; for example, the round of discussions in government departments and in the Civil Service, and all credit to them. However, a new stimulus is needed and a clause such as this could act as a vital catalyst if the issues are to be developed in a serious way. After all, the repercussions could involve the staggering of hours of work and the pooling of travel for some firms, and so on.
	Terms and conditions of employment will be affected both directly and indirectly through the extra charges. Although the amendment does not attempt to prescribe in detail how the consultations in a firm should be carried out with employee representatives, I have no doubt that in many workplaces that will be the make or break factor as to whether the scheme is a success--as I very much hope that it will be--or a failure.
	Finally, although in many respects the national line of the TUC and the CBI is largely supported, both sides need a push to find a better way of ensuring that these matters are discussed in the workplace. It cannot be left to people's common sense in the hope that they will work it out for themselves. Experience shows that that does not happen. People will not march down Whitehall demanding that the charges are introduced; nor do I expect the converse. We do not wish to be wise after the event. That is why I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response. Perhaps this particular form of words can be improved upon, but I hope that the amendment's essential ingredients will be incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My noble friend has given an excellent and comprehensive summary of the aims of the amendment to which I have put my name. I do not need to repeat what he has said, but I have one other point to make on individual taxation, which is very important in selling the concept to employees.
	The issue is a matter for the Treasury, but it comes up in your Lordships' House quite often. I still believe that the tax system encourages people to use their cars. Many people are given company cars and, regardless of whether they are given free petrol, the perception is that it is more advantageous for most of them to drive to work than to buy a season ticket for the train or bus, for which they have to pay out of fully taxed income.
	I hope that, as part of the new 10-year plan for transport, the Government will have the courage to look at this continuing anomaly in the tax situation relating to transport for individuals.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like briefly to support the amendment. It has many merits, not least the interesting light that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, in the trade union movement threw on his argument. When I was a member of Surrey County Council, we began a sort of green transport process, particularly in connection with a large development site. Heathrow airport has got rid of a good deal of its employee parking and introduced a number of bus services for employees. Those are two straws in the wind. Employers or managers of large companies are interested in the idea, because it can benefit them and enable them to get what they want, as well as bringing benefits to the local community. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment a fair wind.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a feeling that I should not speak in support of the principle of the amendment, but it follows on from amendments that we have discussed earlier in the Bill. It is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, mentioned discussions within government departments about the issue. Many thoroughly commercial enterprises already have such schemes. They should be encouraged in any way possible. I shall be amused and interested to see whether the Minister is as encouraging to his noble friends as he has been to us when we have advocated good schemes. I do not intend to launch a torpedo into the amendments by saying that, because I hope that the Minister will take them seriously and will do what he can to support them.

Lord Whitty: Without showing undue favouritism to my noble friend, I have some sympathy with the amendment. It is important for local authorities to encourage green transport plans among employers in their area and for employers to consult properly with their staff and unions in developing such plans. Local authorities are well placed to do that, so we support the underlying aim of the amendment. However--the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise these words--I have yet to be convinced that it is appropriate to include the amendment in primary legislation.
	Local authorities are already being asked to promote travel plans through the local transport plan process. Existing LTP guidance asks local authorities to set out how they will encourage the widespread adoption of travel plans by employers, who will need to consult their work forces, and to consider setting targets for take-up and for modal shift. The extent to which local authorities include those aspects within their local plans will have clear implications for the bids which they put in under those plans.
	In addition, our draft planning policy guidance, PPG13, on transport includes a system of transport assessment to encourage travel by sustainable modes to and from new developments. That means that developers may also be required to produce travel plans with their applications for planning permission. In turn, they will be encouraged to consult widely not only with local authorities but also with those who represent the staff.
	I am less pessimistic than is my noble friend Lord Lea. I go round the country seeing some of those green transport plans and there is a lot of innovation and enthusiasm for them among employers and employees alike. We have highlighted that by producing several guides on travel plans which underline the importance of consulting employees and unions at the outset of the plan development. We have distributed those plans and the earlier guidance to local authorities and there was quite a good take-up to encourage good practice.
	Therefore, I am at one with the aim of the amendment but I remain unconvinced that it should be on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will not press the amendment.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. The key point about the amendment is not so much the promotion of green transport plans per se but is in the context of the introduction of either a congestion charge or a workplace levy.
	I suggest that when those two measures are brought forward priority must be given to discussion with the workforce. That is best done in the context of green transport plans. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said and I shall obviously want to read carefully what the Minister said. I hope it means that we may be able to produce an appropriate form of words for Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 190 agreed to.
	Schedule 12 [Road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 264:
	Page 219, line 10, at end insert--
	("and includes the amount of any VAT charged on road user charges or workplace parking levies").

Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will recognise immediately why this question was asked. He answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, as to whether the Government have any plans to introduce VAT on toll charges. The first purpose of tabling this amendment is to find out whether the workplace parking levy or congestion charges are tolls within the meaning of the Bill. But I suspect that when he replies the Minister will tell us that under the definitions in Euroland they must be so. I shall be interested in that point.
	If that is so, when we introduce those charges we are not simply introducing a local charge or levy in order to support local schemes and produce local benefits. They are also producing a nice little 17.5 per cent supplement on behalf of the Treasury. Most people do not think initially that that is what is happening. It is extremely important that we should be quite clear that that is what the situation is.
	A congestion charge of £1 per day, or whatever it may be, is not a congestion charge of £1 per day because you happen to be in that town and that is what the charge is. It is £1.17½ and the 17½p will go to the Treasury, although we say that the benefit should remain a local one.
	I suspect that in his response the Minister will say that the amendment is not practical politics because VAT is VAT and belongs to Customs and Excise. That may well be the reality. However, if by a freak of good fortune the Minister can tell me that I am completely wrong in my presumptions, those charges will not be subject to VAT, and that therefore I need not concern myself, or that VAT will be payable, the Government will make arrangements to see that the effect on the local chargepayers of the VAT will be returned to the local transport authority, in both instances I shall be delighted. Dare I say that the public will be rather less concerned at what is going on? I shall not say that we would all go on our way rejoicing. I do not think we are in that situation. However, at least we would be in a better situation than the one in which I suspect we are. I suspect we are in one of those lovely situations where the taxpayer pays and nothing can be done about it. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure that I am necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, puts up his case and demolishes it straightaway. I do not think I need to intervene. Perhaps I shall.
	Let us make clear the position on VAT. At present we have the advice of the Advocate General; that is, that VAT should be charged on tolls. The European Court will make its judgment on 12th September. As the noble Lord, Lord-Dixon Smith knows, because it was raised in this House, with four other countries concerned we have been strongly arguing the case against imposing VAT on road tolls.
	We do not yet know the judgment of the court. However, it is the case that normally it is in line with the advice of the Advocate General. We will not know the position about road tolls and congestion charges until we hear the terms of the judgment. I refer not just to the effect of the judgment on road tolls but the way in which it is expressed and whether anything is said which guides us as to whether congestion charges will come under the same judgment. We shall have to consider carefully the text of the judgment of the European Court before we decide what has to be done in this country to implement it.
	However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we agree that the revenue from charging schemes should be hypothecated to transport projects. The imposition of VAT, if it were to happen, should not reduce the funds available to authorities. We shall be working on the exact mechanism for that as schemes are developed. In other words, the Treasury will not take the 17.5 per cent; it will go back to local transport schemes. Bearing that in mind, the local authorities will make decisions about charging levels in the knowledge that if that is to be the case, VAT will have to be part of the charge.
	The amendment also covers VAT charged on workplace parking. We do not expect workplace parking levies to be subject to VAT. If the noble Lord, Lord-Dixon Smith, wants to go away rejoicing, I am happy for him to do so.

Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the local authorities will get back the whole of the amount or will the Treasury make an administration charge and keep some for themselves?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will get back the whole amount.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister. He has given a most helpful reply which, for once, sends me on my way rejoicing. If we had not tabled the amendment and I had not pressed the question, we would not have received his well-defined answer. That helps us all forward. Perhaps the Minister would like to have a word with me afterwards. I wonder whether we will have the benefit of the judgment of the European Court before we meet to consider the Report stage of the Bill, which I take it will be in early October, or might just be in the last day or two of September.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My understanding is that the court will deliver its judgment on 12th September.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Then when we have the benefit of the judgment, the Minister will understand if we find some way of persuading him to reveal what its consequences might be in relation to this Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was cautious to say that we will have to consider the judgment carefully. I cannot promise that we will have reached a firm conclusion as to what the judgment means and how we interpret it before we come to Report stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not want to spoil what I can only regard as a happy occasion. But he will understand if we are anxious to receive the answer.
	This has been a useful discussion, for which I am extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 265:
	Page 221, line 34, leave out paragraph 9 and insert--
	("9. The appropriate national authority may by regulation make provision for paragraph 8 to apply with the substitution for the number for the time being mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph of a number of years greater than ten.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: This is simply another of my consistent moves to try to increase the time for which money is available to local authorities when they have taken the initiative in raising it. The amendment provides that the number of years should be greater than 10, which is what the Bill states. I believe that is perfectly reasonable. But I suspect that the Minister, in his response, will tell me that, though the Government will produce a 10-year plan, 10 years is longer than they foresee it being needed. It will therefore all need to be reviewed before that time is up.
	This is an important amendment. It is consistent with what we have been arguing elsewhere. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those words of explanation in support of his amendment. While I am not able to accept the amendment, it is clear that we are agreed that the hypothecation arrangements set out in Schedule 12 to the Bill are important.
	Amendment No. 265 would provide that regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 could only provide for the extension of the guaranteed period of hypothecation beyond the 10-year period if the revenues raised were spent on improving local transport. The effect of the amendment would therefore be the indefinite hypothecation of the revenues raised for new charges for local transport spending.
	The arrangements that we included in our Greater London Authority Act and have extended to this Bill, represent a breakthrough by guaranteeing hypothecation. We recognise that that is a crucial factor in the success and acceptability of each and every scheme. The Bill therefore provides that every penny of the net revenues raised from local authority charging or licensing schemes brought forward within 10 years of the commencement of this schedule will be retained locally and ring-fenced for transport spending for each scheme's initial period.
	The expectation is that the initial period will be 10 years from the implementation of a scheme. But Schedule 12 also enables the appropriate national authority to guarantee the hypothecation of charging revenues for more than 10 years for individual schemes. That flexibility could be particularly valuable if the local authority wants to undertake a PFI deal and the private sector required a guarantee that a revenue stream would be available for more than 10 years.
	The Bill allows for the arrangements for the retention and use of charging revenues to be reviewed in 10 years' time. That is for the simple reason that spending charging revenues on transport in perpetuity might not deliver value for money improvements in the medium to longer term once substantial improvements to local transport have been put in place. It may well be that the review recommends that 100 per cent hypothecation of charging revenues for transport spending should continue for all schemes for a further period. I can assure Members of the Committee that the Bill explicitly allows for hypothecation for transport spending to continue after the review, though clearly I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review.
	I hope therefore that the noble Lord will reconsider and agree not to press his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister, who has once again given a helpful reply. He will be aware that I know from too much past experience that the funding of large-scale highway improvements often runs for 20 to 25 years, and sometimes even longer. So this is a very important consideration. As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, which I shall study in Hansard with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 12 agreed to.
	Clauses 191 and 192 agreed to.
	Clause 193 [Information]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 266:
	Page 115, line 21, after ("subsection") insert ("(1), (2) or").

Lord Dixon-Smith: If I have interpreted it correctly, the Bill as drafted provides that information that has been obtained from another authority--or, indeed, the Government--in the course of performing functions is only protected from disclosure by the contractor to whom it has been disclosed by the charging or licensing authority in order to set up the scheme and enable it to work. We believe that there is a gap in that provision because there is always a problem with what one might call "commercially protected legislation". Its inadvertent release can have unforeseen and sometimes very damaging consequences for the business that willingly supplied such information in order to help matters move forward.
	The purpose of this amendment is to expand the protection that presently exists against its release by a contractor to cover the Government, the local transport authority or anyone else who has the information and who might inadvertently release it. That is not an unreasonable request. Amendments Nos. 267, 273 and 274 are also included in this group. They are all more or less identical and bring us back to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would call the common law provision. However, I do not apologise for advancing it. If information is released inadvertently and proves to be damaging, these amendments provide that compensation will be available to the person or business so damaged.
	These are old-fashioned principles with which none of us has any difficulty and which I believe we all accept. I thought that we should table such amendments in order to be absolutely certain that in passing this legislation the situation is adequately protected. If it is not, the possibility of obtaining information which may well be essential to the creation of some of these schemes will be endangered. I know that the Minister would not wish such a situation to arise; indeed, I can see the look in his eyes. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Once again, I am pleased to be in agreement with the noble Lord and his intentions, although I hope to persuade him that his concerns are already met. We envisage that the disclosure of information by public bodies may be essential for the fair and effective enforcement of a charging or licensing scheme; for example, the name and address of the registered keeper of a vehicle may need to be passed on to a charging authority by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
	If the charging or licensing authority contracts with a private company to carry out the enforcement of a scheme, the authority will need to be able to pass on such information to its contractor. Subsection (4) of Clause 193 makes clear the caveat that any information passed on in this way under subsection (3) may only be used for, or in connection with, the charging or licensing scheme.
	Amendment No. 266 would extend the caveat in subsection (4) to subsections (1) and (2) also. However, the wording of those two subsections already makes clear that disclosure of information by public bodies or internally within a charging authority may only take place for, or in connection with, a charging or licensing scheme. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that his concern is already specifically catered for.
	I also agree that where information is wrongly disclosed people should be able to claim compensation for any damage caused. However, this is already catered for under the common law through our existing judicial system to which anyone who feels that they have been caused damage in this way could resort. Proceedings under common law provide appropriate remedies for claimants against persons who have wrongly disclosed information.
	I believe therefore that it is not necessary to add this safeguard to the primary legislation through these amendments. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful reply. I do not think that there is a great deal between us. I shall need to study carefully the Minister's comments. In these amendments, as in earlier amendments, one is dealing with a common law situation. However, resorting to the law can be expensive. That is an unfortunate fact of life. It may be necessary to resort to the law to decide what compensation should be paid. Once again we are creating a situation where the lawyers may have a ball. However, I am grateful for the Minister's helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 267 not moved.]
	Clause 193 agreed to.
	Clauses 194 to 198 agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Amendments of Schedules 23 and 24 to Greater London Authority Act]:
	[Amendments Nos. 268 to 274 not moved.]
	Schedule 13 agreed to.
	Clause 201 [Membership and chairing]:

Lord Swinfen: moved Amendment No. 275:
	Page 119, line 14, at end insert (" , and
	(c) at least one person representative of disabled people").

Lord Swinfen: In moving Amendment No. 275, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 284, which stands in my name and with which it is grouped. Amendment No. 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is also in the same group.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 275 is to require that at least one authority member represents the needs of disabled people. Amendment No. 284 requires that disabled people be consulted by the authority in drawing up its strategies.
	With such an important and new authoritative body as the Strategic Rail Authority promises to be, it is essential that it reflects the interests of all existing and potential passengers. Few would disagree that it must therefore cover the needs of those with disabilities. It is therefore excellent that included in the functions of the authority is the task of having regard to the needs of disabled people, as mentioned in Clause 206(3).
	It might, however, be argued that, by chance, someone with a particular interest in disability will be among those appointed to the authority and that this particular function can be informed and overseen by that person. This may be the case but the idea has three serious drawbacks. First, I argue that the interests and needs of people with disabilities are complex and are not always well understood by those with only a casual knowledge of disability. For that reason we need an expert in the authority to whom everyone--other members of the authority and the public at large--can refer.
	Secondly, where meeting the needs of disabled people is left to chance, where no one has a specific responsibility to attend to those needs, it is often the sad case that those needs are overlooked. Correcting the omission later, which the Disability Discrimination Act will in due course require, will then involve a higher cost than would otherwise have been the case.
	Thirdly, in so many organisations we frequently see progress for disabled people made by a particular individual and that progress stop--or even go into reverse--when the individual moves on to another appointment. Such stop/go progress can only be avoided by appointing a specific individual to the authority with the responsibility of having regard to the interests of people with disabilities. Such an appointment has the overwhelming benefit of institutionalising those interests.
	I would also argue that the number of disabled people is such--some estimates suggest that 6 million people in this country have impaired mobility--that this important function needs to be the specific responsibility of a particular member of the authority. If that were to be the case, as the amendment proposes, we would ensure that the functions spelt out in Clause 206(3) are effectively, efficiently and economically performed. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: In speaking to my Amendment No. 276 I shall refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 275 and 284, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has spoken. I believe that my noble friend has already beaten us to it because on 13th April he appointed seven members to the board of the Strategic Rail Authority, one of whom has great experience of dealing with travel for the disabled and one of whom "will represent passenger interests". This is greatly welcome. My amendment and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seek to put this on a statutory footing. I certainly welcome what my noble friend has done and I hope that it is bearing fruit.
	In the interests of equity--and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and, to repeat what I have said previously in Committee, an adviser to Adtran; perhaps I should add that my wife works for the Strategic Rail Authority which, I think, technically is the British Railways Board--it would be reasonable to seek one person to be appointed to the Strategic Rail Authority who has experience of the needs of rail freight. In my view, if it is good for passengers, it is good for freight.
	It is very important that there should be someone on the authority who has experience of working in a local transport authority. We are aiming to produce a Bill for integrated transport policies and, as the Committee discussed several days ago, local transport plans are very important. I think they have some way to go before they reach a standard which will be uniformly acceptable and it would be very useful to have someone on the board with experience of local transport planning, local government transport policy development and so on.
	I do not feel strongly about whether my noble friend considers it appropriate to place this requirement on the face of the Bill. But if has he appointed someone to represent the interests of rail passengers and someone to represent the interests of the disabled, it would be equitable if he appointed someone to represent the interests of rail freight and another person from a local transport authority.

Lord Addington: Perhaps I may speak briefly. My name appears alongside the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on Amendments Nos. 274 and 275. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put the matter clearly when he said that the amendment would institutionalise responsibility for the disabled. We know that if one takes one's eye off the ball for any amount of time one can easily make a mistake. The classic example is where escalators are put in which suit certain types of disabled people but do not suit others. We go on from there. One has to keep constantly vigilant to make sure that this does not happen.
	The noble Lord was right when he said that because one has someone initially in place who knows about these matters and he is not there, it is assumed that the matters are dealt with and checked. People make mistakes like that. I know there will be an argument against the idea of listing any one particular person. But unless we get strong reassurances that people will constantly keep vigilant there is a grave danger that certain areas of good practice may ultimately be eroded by time.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I can make an even briefer speech in support of the amendments. My name never did get on the amendment because I was too slow off the mark. I should like to support what both noble Lords have said on Amendments Nos. 275 and 284, particularly the part reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Earl Attlee: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Swinfen on introducing his self-evidently desirable amendment. We have heard many helpful comments, particularly about the need for constant pressure for good practice. I hope that the Minister will be helpful to us on the amendment.

Lord Whitty: We entirely sympathise with the objectives of the amendment. My problem is that we do not wish to see the Strategic Rail Authority, or other authorities within the transport areas, being represented in the sense that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would imply. We expect to see members with experience of exactly the kind of areas that have been referred to--disabled people, rail freight, local government and so on. But in practice members of the board will often wear several hats and not, as the amendment would imply, represent any one particular organisation or group. To put these requirements in the amendments on the face of the Bill would cut across the aim of having an overall representative body. We are concerned at the under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in relation to public appointments as a whole and to transport appointments in particular. Those considerations will be taken into account when choosing members.
	Amendment No. 284 would require the SRA to consult representatives of disabled people before formulating a strategy and from time to time as part of keeping a strategy under review. Clearly, it would be sensible for the SRA to consult and to do so taking into account the views of those organisations representing disabled people. But, as we have argued before, it is not necessary, or indeed desirable, to put on the face of the Bill long lists of organisations to be consulted. The list would grow and some organisations will always be omitted in error.
	However, I can meet the noble Lord to some extent. The SRA will need to consult many organisations about many matters. I am happy to give an assurance that in the directions that we give to the SRA under Clause 206 and the guidance we give to the SRA we include general guidance on consultation with the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee--DPTAC. That will be clear in the guidance. It will achieve the objectives intended by Amendment No. 284. With those reassurances to both the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, that these procedures will be followed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the various Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendments tell us what they are going to do with them, as it were, I wonder whether the noble Lord could come back to the part of Amendment No. 276 which refers to the need to have someone on the SRA with experience of local government. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was a very good one. Elsewhere in the Bill we are encouraging local government to co-operate in various ways--ticketing is just one--with the rail services.
	My experience is that it is quite difficult for local government to talk to the railway industry. The two bodies are so different, their approach to life is so different and the way they are constituted is so different that misunderstandings can be caused. The suggestions that there should be someone with experience, or that in appointing people the Government might give weight to the fact that one of the candidates had experience, in local government are sensible.

Lord Whitty: I said that we would expect membership of the board to include, among the other areas covered by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and those covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, members who have experience of local government. What I was objecting to was the representative nature implied by the amendments. Certainly, we would want people who had experience of that kind and indeed experience of disabled people and their needs.

Lord Swinfen: It is not my intention to press the amendment today. I shall read with care what the Minister has said. However, I am not sure that I agree with him. The fact that a member of the board may be representative of a particular group does not mean to say that he cannot take an intelligent and wise interest in other matters that come before the board. The noble Lord has only to look at himself and bear in mind the wide range of matters with which he himself deals in this House. The same could be said of nearly every Member of this House. They have their strong points, but that does not mean to say that they do not take an interest in everything else that goes on, or at any rate in a wide range of what goes on, and deal with those matters intelligently and sensibly. I hope that the noble Lord will take on board what I have said and that he will consider this matter further before we reach the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 276 not moved.]
	Clause 201 agreed to.
	Clauses 202 and 203 agreed to.
	Schedule 14 [Strategic Rail Authority]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 277:
	Page 232, line 3, at end insert--
	("( ) Full details of staff numbers shall be published in an annual return.").

Earl Attlee: In moving this amendment it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281 and 281A. We are concerned that both the SRA and the office of rail regulator are planning considerable increases in staffing and resources. Those increases need proper scrutiny to ensure that the costs of regulation do not increase to a point where they divert resources away from running the railway system. Clearly, the more staff the SRA employs the more it suggests that it intends to take a role in the day-to-day running of the railway industry rather than follow a more strategic remit.
	According to the DETR annual report, the SRA plans to increase its staff from 126 to 237. While it is taking on some more responsibilities, an increase of almost 100 per cent since 1998 needs close examination and continued scrutiny to ensure that this rise is not intended to continue inexorably. The rail regulator is also planning an increase in staff from 130 to 180. We would be concerned if that increase were to continue in the same way.
	I turn to Amendment No. 278. Examination of the schedule provides an opportunity to explore the funding of the SRA. The precise nature of the funding provision of the SRA remains vague. As Keith Hill said at the Committee stage in another place:
	"The fine details of the SRA's financing structure are still being developed".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 28/3/00; col. 1144.]
	It is now time that these fine details were resolved.
	One of the key advantages of privatising the railway industry was that it was taken out of the uncertainties of the public sector spending round and it was allowed to plan for the long term. The SRA, and therefore the railway industry, will not have that certainty unless a long-term commitment is made by the Government to provide adequate funding. The Government are now planning public finances on a three-year rolling basis. It is therefore not unreasonable that the SRA should have the same certainty. A stable framework for long-term future funding is vital for the railways when most projects last for several years.
	On privatisation, a long-term programme of subsidy to the railways was established and written into the franchise agreements. This is now under threat. It is clear that the Treasury is going to take a close interest in the funding of the SRA and, as currently drafted, the SRA will have to go to the Treasury for every separate project, having to make the case for extra borrowing approval. That cannot be satisfactory. It will go against the interests of the train operators, Railtrack and passengers if the SRA ends up as a new version of British Rail, dominated by short-term planning and dependent on the vagaries of the public sector spending round. This was the disease that was cured by the 1993 Act.
	Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 279 and 280. These follow on from our general concerns about SRA funding, but focus on its borrowing limits. The amendment is designed to allow Ministers to explain more clearly the funding arrangements for the SRA. The SRA appears to have four methods of funding: grants from the Government; loans from the Government; borrowing; and income from franchises. Ministers have set a borrowing limit of £3 billion, but it is unclear whether that includes the £1 billion inherited from BR. Furthermore, it is unclear what limits will be put on spending and in what circumstances the SRA will be able to borrow instead of using its grant funding. It is important that the Government clarify exactly what will be the balance between different sources of funding and the role of the Secretary of State in determining that balance.
	During his replies in Committee in another place, the Minister, at col. 1158, was unable to give further details of how this would work, saying that the Government could not,
	"anticipate those decisions [of the SRA] in any further detail."--[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 28/3/00; col. 1158.]
	At that point we said that we would return to this issue. Considerable sums of taxpayers' money are involved here. It is entirely appropriate that the travelling public should know how the SRA is to operate and spend its money. We hope that the Minister will now be able to give the Committee further details of the operation of the SRA.
	Paragraph 16 of Schedule 14 obliges the Secretary of State to specify rules and principles according to which the Strategic Rail Authority must exercise its functions in relation to financial and employment matters. Amendment No. 281 would remove that obligation. The authority ought to be able to make its own financial and employment rules. It is an unwarranted interference on the part of the Secretary of State to dictate to the authority on such issues. It is another example of the Government's urge to control everything in sight.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 281A. Part III of Schedule 14 provides that the Secretary of State shall prepare a financial framework for the SRA. My amendment would reduce his role to that of merely approving it. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I should like to comment briefly on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in respect of the staff numbers of the rail regulator. I shall not comment on the SRA. If the rail regulator believes that he needs extra staff, as was suggested by the noble Earl, I believe that that is more than justified. The regulator is now faced with making periodic reviews of Railtrack's access charges. Railtrack is alleged to be £4 billion over budget on the West Coast main line on a £2 billion base cost. Furthermore, the regulator is still trying to secure from Railtrack the production of a register of assets. It seems not to know what it owns, how big are the tunnels and how heavy are the bridges. The regulator has a great deal to do to catch up which, in my view, should have been done many years ago, at the start of privatisation.
	I would certainly support any extra staff or funding that the regulator felt that he needed. I also think that the industry needs this.

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is slightly inconsistent in his approach. On the one hand he wishes us to specify absolute control over the number of staff for the SRA and in another breath he says that the Secretary of State should not interfere with the financing of the SRA and its decisions.
	Perhaps I may look at the staffing issue first. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said, we are giving the SRA a significant additional role and we expect it to be able to assess with the rail regulator the requirements for the staffing of those bodies. That means that the authority will need to assess how many staff it needs to carry out its duties. We have given it the power under the Bill to do so, and we should not disturb that.
	So far as concerns Amendment No. 278, the noble Earl suggests that he is trying give some civility of framework for the SRA. In fact, the time horizon for the authority will be considerably longer than the three years suggested by the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Macdonald will soon be publishing the 10-year plan for transport which will provide the overall planning framework for the railways and other transport modes. Within this broad structure, the authority's three-year budgets will be set, along with three-year budgets for other DETR spending programmes in future spending rounds. Plans for replacement of the franchises, for example, will look to a 20-year time-scale. Each franchise will include commitments by the SRA to pay subsidy or by the franchisee to make premium payments to the SRA over the whole lifetime of the franchise. Each franchise will be signed off by Ministers and, as part of that signing off, will need to give the authority appropriate assurances about funding to cover franchise commitments. Therefore, the long term is clearly catered for and Amendment No. 278 is unnecessary.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 279 and 280 would be to remove the borrowing limits for the authority. The main way in which the authority will receive its funds is through grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the authority may need to borrow and that is why we have given the limit to such borrowing. There is no magic about the £3 billion figure, there are no secret calculations to show that that is what the authority will be borrowing. Quite simply, the £3 billion relates to the existing borrowing limit for the British Rail Board, one of the bodies that will be wound up into the authority. It seems sensible for that limit, which as the noble Earl implied is not currently exercised to its full degree but remains on the statute book, to be retained and carried forward into the SRA. We want the authority to have the flexibility to borrow if necessary.
	Amendment No. 281 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a financial framework and Amendment No. 281A would make the Secretary of State's role simply one of approval rather than engagement in the preparing of it. Neither amendment would be helpful. Some sort of financial framework is needed to achieve this, and it is not sufficient assurance in terms of responsibilities to Parliament and probity of public finance for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the SRA, simply to approve the framework by a rubber stamp. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments are helpful, and in some cases the objective of stability of funding would not be better achieved by the noble Earl's amendments as distinct from what is already on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue them.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned the 10-year transport spending plan. Will that be set in stone? What will happen if the economy suffers a setback, tax revenues are reduced and savings then have to be found?

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl echoes questions that have been put to his leader in another place about tax guarantees and other unwise commitments previously made by the Tory leadership.
	So far as concerns the 10-year plan, the resources will be committed. Clearly, there will be some flexibility in the application of those resources as transport modes and priorities change. But the resources will be announced by my noble friend and they will be committed. The SRA will have its appropriate share of those resources.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 278 to 281A not moved.]
	Schedule 14 agreed to.
	Clause 204 [Purposes]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: moved Amendment No. 282:
	Page 120, line 10, at end insert (", and
	(d) to oversee the specification of rail services in metropolitan areas, responsibility for which it shall delegate to the appropriate Passenger Transport Executive, or in the case of Greater London, Transport for London").

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This amendment would add to the purposes of the appropriate authority. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have argued sometimes and agreed often about the necessary level of devolution. My previous amendment today sought to lift that from local to regional level. The amendment gives specific responsibility to the metropolitan areas, so that they may have their own say at a lower level of democratic responsibility than the rest of the clause covers. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: Under Clause 244(2), the directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State will override the requirements of passenger transport executives in relation to franchises. The Government should not interfere with the legitimate requirements of PTEs, which have the local knowledge necessary to ensure that franchises are properly specified. It is no business of the Government to give directions or guidance that conflict with the local expression of needs.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The amendments relate to the rights, powers and duties of passenger transport executives, which have wide powers under Section 34 of the Railways Act 1993. In respect of each passenger service in their area, they will be able to give notice to the SRA specifying the level and quality of services needed to meet public requirements in their areas.
	Section 34 provides that the SRA will need to ensure that the level and quality of services--including fares--specified by the PTE are included in the specification. PTEs can be a co-signatory with the SRA to any franchise agreement in respect of such services, which gives them a unique and prominent role in franchising.
	We do not need to modify the executives' powers to specify services in their areas and the Bill does not do so. However, local transport needs may have, from time to time, to be balanced against the broader national picture. I hope the Committee accepts our general view, which is entirely consistent with the policy to create a new strategic framework, that if there is a conflict between local and strategic considerations, the latter should prevail.
	That brings me to the detail of these amendments. Amendment No. 282 provides for the SRA to delegate responsibility for specifying rail services in metropolitan areas to the appropriate PTE or, in the case of London, to Transport for London. However, the SRA would continue to oversee the process. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will forgive my saying that the words "oversee" and "delegate" are somewhat ambiguous. They might be taken to describe the current arrangement: the PTEs specify what is required but the SRA oversees the process in terms of its wider implications.
	However, I suspect that the noble Lord has something a little more radical in mind; namely, a reduction in the ability of the SRA to intervene in the specifications made by the PTEs. Amendment No. 361 would have a similar effect and remove the requirement for the SRA to disregard PTE specifications which were contrary to directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State or (for Scotland) Scottish Ministers. As I hope I have explained, I do not believe that we should go that far. The SRA would be able to set aside the PTE's specification if, but only if, to accept it would be contrary to the guidance given by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers, or it would have an adverse effect on passenger or goods services, or it would cost the SRA money. The SRA might still accept the PTE specification even if it would have an adverse effect on passenger or goods services or add to SRA costs. In this respect the SRA will have discretion.
	In the event of a conflict between local and national demands there is an opportunity under the dispute resolution provisions in the 1993 Act for the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to Parliament for local and national railway services, to determine where the balance lies. We believe that that makes the balance between local and national interests just right.
	The noble Lord's amendment also contains provisions in respect of London where the position is somewhat different. Transport for London will not have powers equivalent to the PTEs to specify services to be provided under franchises. On the other hand, the Mayor has power to issue directions and guidance to the SRA in relation to rail services in London which the PTEs do not have.
	Without going into unnecessary detail, train services within London are so interwoven with regional and national services that a separate power for TfL to specify local services would be inappropriate. On the other hand, the Mayor will have a much broader influence through his directions and guidance in which he will be able to reflect the contribution that railways can make to his broader responsibilities for the economic and social well-being of London. That careful distinction would be undermined by the amendment, which would give the Mayor detailed powers to specify services alongside his broader powers of direction and guidance. We believe that that would tip the balance too far in the direction of local over national interests in respect of what is the heart of the national rail network.
	I turn to Amendment No. 362, which affects the dispute resolution provisions that I mentioned earlier. If any dispute arises between the SRA and PTE in relation to a franchise agreement, or a proposal for such an agreement, either party may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State for determination under Section 34(17). The Secretary of State will be able to consider the arguments and give to the PTE or the authority such directions as he considers fit. That may include a requirement under Section 34(19) for the authority or PTE to enter into a franchise agreement on such terms as the Secretary of State decides.
	Amendment No. 362 is not desirable because it would remove a helpful new provision which was added in Committee in another place. This provision clarifies that any disagreement between the PTEs and the SRA as to what should be specified in a franchise agreement will be a dispute for the purposes of Section 34(17) and that the Secretary of State will be able to resolve it as he sees fit. The clarification was inserted in the Bill following representations made by the PTEs that Section 34 of the Railways Act does not make sufficiently clear that the Secretary of State can direct the SRA regarding what should go in the franchise agreement.
	I have no doubt that the authority and PTEs will continue to work together in the current franchise replacement negotiations to achieve a franchise settlement which reflects both local and national needs. The directions and guidance to the SRA by both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers will be published and the PTEs will be able to take account of them in drawing up their statements. Therefore I do not expect that in practice conflict will arise between those statements and the directions and guidance. But Clause 244 ensures that in the unlikely event of an irreconcilable dispute between the authority and a PTE regarding a franchise specification, the Secretary of State can intervene.
	I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The burden of that answer appears to be that mother knows best, but I am not sure that mother always does know best. Nor am I sure that I agree with the main idea put forward--that in a clash between the overall strategic national plan and the local plan the strategic national plan should prevail.
	I take account of what the Minister said about the wording of my amendment and I shall re-examine the London situation. I understand that it is more complex than I had presumed when I tabled the amendment. However, unlike the other amendments standing in my name today, I shall probably bring this one back at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 283:
	Page 120, line 10, at end insert--
	("(d) to identify unmet needs for railway services; and
	(e) to expand the railway network where appropriate").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The amendment adds two more purposes to those of the SRA: first, that of identifying the unmet needs for railway services and, secondly, the expansion of the network appropriately. It does that by adding two paragraphs to Clause 204(3).
	Merely satisfying the existing need will not be sufficient for the railway to play its part in an integrated transport system which is designed to be sustainable and to reduce traffic on the roads. But nor is the simple determination to grow the service any good unless there is a similar determination to expand the network to match the services. Arguably, some of the railway's greatest problems, from delays to overcrowding, since privatisation stem from that simplistic approach.
	These are modest proposals. The network is to be expanded appropriately; that is, in the light of measured need. I am not suggesting expansion for the sake of expansion. Furthermore, we are talking about the need for all railway services, not merely passenger services. Therefore, the requirement from the freight industry must also be addressed and responded to appropriately. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. The purpose of the integrated transport policy is to encourage people to use public transport. There is much evidence that a large proportion of the population has never been on a train. I had a horrible experience when I worked for Eurotunnel and ran a tourist attraction. I had to encourage people to come to look at it and we used to have about 300,000 visitors a year, including many school groups. We had a couple of old passenger coaches in which we had education work. Day after day, people turned up and asked, "What's that?". We said, "It's a railway train". Many people in this country do not know what a railway train is or how to use it. To the uninitiated, it is pretty frightening.
	I shall be moving amendments later so I shall not bore the Committee now by speaking about them twice. However, we must make the railway system simple and attractive for people. I believe that the intention,
	"to identify unmet needs for railway services",
	alongside, it is hoped, a provision relating to buses, is very important if we are to attract large numbers of the population who have cars and intend to use them. We must try to wean them off their cars and on to public transport.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The amendment seeks to add two more to the fundamental purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority; that is, that the authority should identify unmet needs for railway services and that it should be able to expand the network where appropriate. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that we consider the amendment to be unnecessary. One of the three high-level purposes of the SRA is already,
	"to secure the development of the railway network".
	For the record, I can assure the Committee categorically that that includes examining the possible expansion of the railway network and the need for new network to meet demand where appropriate.
	I can also assure the Committee that we have carried through that high-level purpose to the basic level of giving the authority the powers that it needs to do the job. As can be seen in Clause 210, it will have very wide funding powers to encourage, promote and, where necessary, fund the development of the network. Where necessary, the authority can even go so far as to promote a Bill in Parliament to facilitate growth. Therefore, if a private Act is needed, it can help or co-ordinate that. The authority can also go to the rail regulator and request that he directs facility owners to enhance facilities or provide new facilities. Therefore, it could be well within this power to request a new station or a new stretch of track.
	Therefore, the Committee can rest assured on the legal framework. However, I suspect that, as usual, the noble Baronesses in whose names the amendment stands are being more subtle than simply considering the legal framework. These reassurances were given in another place and they want to know more of the Government's and the SRA's intention.
	Some cogent and relevant points were made in another place. With regard to the balance between rural and urban needs, concern was expressed that the congested urban centres should not receive all the investment. It was pointed out that there was a need to look at transport in the round to see whether re-openings of lines would make sense. There was the possible need for new stations and the needs of commuters, as well as those of long-distance travellers.
	We accept that those are all strategic issues relating to what we want from a railway network, how best it can meet the needs of the community, of changing demand and of settlement patterns, and how the network should be structured and taken forward. Local problems were also brought forward in another place. However, a much wider point was made: we must get right the quality of service in order to encourage people to move from their cars and on to the network.
	All that requires a strategic examination of the network, which the SRA will bring. It needs a champion who can look at the needs of local areas and relate them to the overall network and to the overall problems and start to address them with solutions. Some solutions are already in place; for example, the franchise replacement process, which I hope will deliver substantial new investment.
	The SRA's strategic plan produced under Clause 205 will address network priorities to enable growth, although clearly it will be for local authorities to consider more local schemes. The shadow SRA has already commissioned studies to consider the need for new infrastructure. The South Trans Pennine Integrated Transport Study, which involves the shadow SRA, Railtrack and the local authorities, will consider the case for restoring the Matlock to Buxton line as part of a core east to west route from Derby to Manchester.
	The shadow SRA is also encouraging rail passenger partnership fund bids for the funding of new facilities or re-openings where they meet the published planning criteria. One example is an Edinburgh cross-rail scheme, which involves the reinstatement of a short section of the former Waverley route to serve two new park-and-ride stations.
	I assure the Committee that these possibilities and any concrete proposals will be considered seriously. Where they are justified, we shall ensure that the mechanisms are in place to ensure that they can take place. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his detailed and reassuring response. I shall read it with great interest. The next stage in the progress of the Bill is so far distant that it is impossible to think about what anybody will do then, but it is unlikely that I shall bring the amendment back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 204 agreed to.
	Clause 205 [Strategies]:
	[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 285:
	Page 120, line 26, leave out from beginning to first ("by") in line 28 and insert--
	("The Authority shall formulate a strategy for securing the provision of services in various parts of Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and freight").

Lord Berkeley: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 427. I thank my noble friend the Minister for responding today to a question that he was, quite reasonably, unable to answer on the final amendment in Grand Committee. He has confirmed that if Eurostar or EWS cease to operate cross-Channel services, the assets will be ring-fenced. I am most grateful to him for that helpful information.
	The amendment would add a regional dimension to the duties of the SRA. It is a consequence of the intention in the Bill to withdraw Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. My Amendment No. 427 was designed to keep that section in, but I was just trying to have my chicken and eggs in the same thing--or whatever the right expression is.

Noble Lords: Have your cake and eat it.

Lord Berkeley: To have my cake and eat it. Thank you very much.
	The history of regional services to the Channel Tunnel is rather sad. Some 15 years ago, both Houses had to fight very hard for the Government to accept any obligation to consider the regional aspects and encourage passenger train services from the regions. That is how Section 40 of the Act came in.
	Regional interests have pressed the Government to update that. I was disappointed by the latest study, which came from the consultants, Arthur D. Little. It said that there were not enough passengers to justify a regional service, even from Birmingham or Manchester, because the service was too infrequent. It did not look at the original idea of splitting the trains in two, so that we could have double the number of trains but still maintain safety through the Channel Tunnel. It did not look at running domestic passengers on international trains, which many people, even in the security service, say would be possible. It then said that there was no economic case. I do not find that surprising, given what I have just said, together with a load of other items with which I shall not bore the Committee.
	It is true that the Channel Tunnel trains are expensive. Maybe there is not an economic case, but there is no economic case for many of the passenger franchises in this country today. They would not survive without subsidy. The inter-city routes tend to make money, but many of the others do not. If it is acceptable to subsidise most passenger services in this country, we should at least consider making a similar arrangement for regional Eurostar services.
	My aim in the amendment was to get the SRA to pick up an idea that successive governments have failed to take forward, to the detriment of the regions. I hope that the SRA will pick up the idea and see what can be done to try to make the services work, at least in the medium term. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I certainly support the objectives of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Would it not be wonderful to board a train, as one used to be able to do on the north coast of France, and get into a carriage marked "Dover, Paris, Rome" and just be moved around the system so that you started the journey in Manchester and ended it in Rome? Such long journeys, particularly for tourism purposes, would bring quite different categories of passengers back onto the railways.
	That is a rather frivolous response to a serious amendment but nevertheless, it has an extremely attractive and important aspect to it.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I have some sympathy with the amendment's intention in relation to Channel Tunnel services, even if I do not accept that the provision should be added to the Bill. It is right that the SRA should have a strategy which would best serve rail travellers and freight operators seeking to get to the Channel Tunnel from beyond London. We have recognised that by explicitly providing for the authority to be under a duty to prepare such a strategy.
	Considerable thought is being given to the best resolution of the regional Eurostar question. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commissioned the Arthur D Little report, which was released in February. The British Railways Board is currently exercising its functions under Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to prepare a plan stating the measures which should be taken for Eurostar services serving various parts of the UK and it may take account of the ADL report in its considerations. The SRA will then have a duty to prepare a strategy under Clause 205(4).
	We want to give the authority the flexibility to consider appropriate ways of meeting changing demands for cross-Channel travel. It may be that it will conclude in accordance with its Clause 205(4) duty as currently formulated that direct regional Eurostar services or an additional freight link should be provided. But it may also include considering how regional passengers and freight operators could benefit from better integration of domestic and international services. Indeed, we are encouraging domestic train operators and Eurostar (UK) Limited to ensure that convenient through-ticketing is developed for passengers travelling to the Continent from outside the South-East. In addition, by 2007 regional rail users will be able to travel on high-speed trains into Euston and King's Cross for easy connections to international services departing from St. Pancras.
	The SRA will also want to be able to consider the best use of the available capacity on the national network, and whether economic, social or environmental benefits would justify a subsidy to certain international through services. It will also have to recognise that certain parts of the country cannot be served by direct through services, as the ADL report confirmed.
	The original clause here provides for a strategy that will address actual passenger and freight needs and certainly does not preclude the operation of regional services through the Channel Tunnel.
	On freight, there is already an established international freight market through the Channel Tunnel which originates from throughout Great Britain. The recent decision by the Transport Council to liberalise access for international freight operators across member states' networks should strengthen the growth in that market. What is needed is a strategy which can help augment growth in this market. The original clause provides for such a strategy and would accompany the strategies developed under Clause 205(1), which would include reference to the promotion of freight traffic on the network.
	We want the SRA to be looking widely at all options for encouraging international traffic and not tie it to securing international services if it does not consider that to be an appropriate option. I hope, then, that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that very full explanation. I believe that he has satisfied me on nearly every count. I shall certainly read Hansard carefully. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 205 agreed to.

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 286:
	After Clause 205, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND MINIMUM STANDARD LEVELS
	(" .--(1) The Authority shall publish regular performance measures on all scheduled passenger services.
	(2) For franchised services, the Authority shall maintain a public performance measure covering all scheduled services.
	(3) For services not subject to franchising agreements, the Authority shall procure from operators and their employing authority equivalent information and publish it alongside those of franchised services.
	(4) For international services, performance information applies to the UK part only.
	(5) Exemptions from performance measures may be granted to heritage railways.
	(6) The Authority shall publish minimum standard levels for each franchise operator together with levels of performance at which penalties apply and at which a franchise holder may be--
	(a) deprived of his franchise, or
	(b) prevented from applying for other franchises for specific periods.").

Lord Berkeley: In moving Amendment No. 286 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 286A. My concern in tabling the amendment is that in the past I have perceived a great gulf between what the previous government and the franchising directors have said about what a wonderful passenger service they were creating and what it is like to travel on such a service.
	We are getting better now at measuring delays, cancellations and overcrowding. However, one still reads pretty horrendous stories. I am a little concerned at the response from my noble friend to a Written Question I tabled which asked what levels of poor service to passengers would exclude franchise operators from being awarded new or extended franchises. My noble friend responded, stating that past performance is one of many criteria that will be taken into account. Is that enough?
	The SRA has recently put on its website a rather better and more comprehensive performance measurement, certainly of cancellations and delays. I thought that it would be useful to try to structure an amendment to put that on the face of the Bill. I refer to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Amendment No. 286. I hope that it will also include overcrowding, which can be solved simply by building more trains. That may sound trite, but I think that is so.
	I also think the provision should be extended to services which are not subject to franchise agreements. I refer, for example, to Heathrow Express. I expect it is very reliable but there is no reason why the SRA should not report on it. It should be required to provide reports. I refer also to Eurostar. I suppose I tabled the amendment having got up early one morning to catch the 6.15 train from Waterloo only to find that it had been cancelled. I wondered who measures and publishes performances of the Eurostar trains.
	I felt that heritage railways should probably be exempt. Then I thought that, possibly in paragraph (6) of the amendment, there must be a standard below which the franchisee should not, under any circumstances, be awarded another franchise. I do not know what that standard would be. However, if we are to attract more people on to the railways, we should give them information, comfort and the knowledge that they will get from A to B with as much reliability that we can achieve.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 286A. This idea goes back to Amendment No. 283, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, concerning unmet needs for railway services. The Railway Reform Group produced an interesting document suggesting that many more people would be attracted to using the railways if there was a clockface departure timetable throughout the day, including the rush hours.
	That happens in the Netherlands and Switzerland. It has proved extremely successful in attracting more people to rail on the basis that they do not need to consult a timetable. For people who are not used to them, timetables can be difficult to read. If trains to London, Manchester or Derby depart at a certain time past the hour or half hour throughout the day, that would provide a useful means of attracting more people to use the trains. This adds to the matters which the Strategic Rail Authority should be considering to encourage more people to use rail. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 287, tabled in my name, in this grouping. Clause 206(2) sets out the objectives of the authority in exercising its functions. It includes the promotion of through ticketing between passenger service operators. However, it does not appear to cover through ticketing across different forms of transport. The amendment makes explicit the need to promote such through multi-mode ticketing schemes. It also provides for the promotion of integrated information and ticket booking facilities.
	The integration of information and booking facilities is a vital element in a modern, integrated transport system. With the sophisticated technology now available, it should be possible for passengers to obtain from one outlet information as to the scheduled times of trains, up-to-date information on their running, the range of fares and the cheapest fare for the particular journey, similar information on the bus and other connections and the ticket itself. It should be a major task of the authority to encourage such systems.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments all have the laudable aim of making journeys easier and standards more transparent. For various reasons though we consider them unnecessary or undesirable.
	I shall start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He is totally right that good information about the standards that the railway service providers are delivering is worth while, even though I do not agree that the amendment itself would be helpful. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority publishes regular bulletins of performance information, including the standards set and outputs against them. It has set a public performance measure for franchised services which includes the performance of all trains, on all days, with no exceptions. That is a clearer, more meaningful measure than the previous Passenger's Charter.
	Franchise agreements include a threshold level of operational performance below which the franchising director has the power to terminate the agreement automatically. And franchise operators' current performance is a key factor that is being taken into account by the shadow SRA when considering bids under the franchise replacement process. Obligations to publish performance information for franchised services, and to take current performance into account when re-negotiating existing franchises, are included in our instructions and guidance to the franchising director. We expect to publish similar requirements for the SRA.
	The existing level of standard setting, monitoring and reporting in respect of franchised operators therefore already covers what my noble friend wishes to put in the Bill. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Moreover, to add this level of detail to the Bill would be restrictive. The details of publication of information is properly a matter for the SRA to manage, with any directions and guidance from the Secretary of State as he may deem necessary.
	The amendment also covers non-franchised services and for those a different set of circumstances applies. There will not be the same public interest, in a regulatory sense, to put a requirement on the authority to publish performance information on a statutory basis. That is consistent with the position in other transport industries such as aviation.
	Amendment No. 286A is rather different in nature and would mean that, when promoting through journeys by rail, the SRA would also have to promote what are known as "clockface timetables"; that is to say, timetables and connections on the basis of regular patterns of service. The SRA will be a strategic body. Because of its responsibility for franchising, the SRA will have a major influence on the timetable. Franchisees must deliver a timetable that incorporates the agreed passenger service requirements (PSRs), including connections where those are franchise conditions. However, it would not be appropriate for the SRA to have the specific duties in respect of the timetable contained in Amendment No. 286A. That level of detail is for the industry to undertake within the regulatory and contractual framework.
	At a more practical level, services should relate to demand rather than a specified regular pattern. Co-ordination of a regular timetable on a national basis would be an onerous task, with no guarantee of success. Regular patterns may disadvantage customers on less well used services. Where a regular pattern of service is desirable, the industry's timetable planning process should be sufficient to achieve the benefits for the passenger. The National Timetabling Conference, set up by the industry after the first Rail Summit, is providing a mechanism for balancing the previously fragmented process for timetable planning. The important thing is to maximise capacity through good "slot management".
	Amendment No. 287 would mean that when promoting through journeys by rail, including through ticketing, the SRA would also have to promote inter-modal ticketing and the integration of the railway information and ticket booking facilities. I welcome the approach to integrated transport of Members opposite. Under Clause 204(c) it is a primary purpose of the SRA to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. There is therefore no need to specify on the face of the Bill all the aspects of integration to which the SRA is to have regard.
	I can assure noble Lords opposite and my noble friends that integrated ticketing and integrated information are a vital part of integrated transport. The SRA will promote such schemes, which are growing in number. For example, we have asked the franchising director, when he examines franchise replacement bids, to give due weight to the extent to which integrated transport measures both within the rail network and between rail and other transport modes can be achieved, including integrated public transport information.
	As regards integrated ticketing, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey referred in Grand Committee to examples of multi-modal ticketing schemes in over 130 towns and cities, so such schemes are already quite commonplace. We should like to see them extended. As for integrated information, later this year we shall be launching a single telephone service to give people timetable information on all forms of public transport. That will meet another of the commitments in our transport White Paper.
	I fully understand the points made by noble Lords opposite that, having moved towards integrated ticketing and integrated information, the next step is to bring the two elements together to provide passengers with a one-stop shop.
	Commercial factors are already encouraging train operators to address the problem that rail information and ticketing is not readily available from a single source. A number of train companies' Internet sites already provide a combined information and booking facility. Examples of online booking services offering discounted tickets and information include those offered by First Great Western, First North Western and Virgin.
	As far as concerns government action, a single telephone service for public transport timetable information is a good start. We shall build on this in the future, continuing to work with operators and local authorities to exploit the Internet. The Government's objective is a comprehensive travel information and retailing service. In the light of my response, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Lord Berkeley: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply. However, I was surprised when he said--I believe I recall his words correctly--that he did not think there was a public interest issue in knowing about how many cancellations or delays there were for Eurostar or the Heathrow Express. It seems to me that members of the public are very interested in knowing whether or not such trains run on time. It is perhaps something that will have to be done through persuasion, if there is no legal means of doing so. I believe that that could be a big hole in a totally integrated transport service. But having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 206 [Manner of exercise of functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 286A and 287 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 288:
	Page 121, line 4, at end insert--
	("( ) to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and its integration with other transport modes,").

Lord Berkeley: There are four amendments tabled in my name in this grouping. Amendment No. 288 is designed to provide the same information requirement of the SRA--namely,
	"to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail"--
	as set out in the previous paragraph of the clause in respect of passengers. I tabled this amendment as a matter of completeness.
	I turn next to Amendment No. 289. I felt that experience in the industry during the past five years has shown that, if and when growth occurs, there is a distinct danger that there will not be enough people, equipment or trained staff to enable such growth to take place. The best example is probably in signalling. Two years ago, Railtrack announced such a shortage of signalling staff that it had to have its signal systems designed in Australia. However, a year later the signalling industry in this country was laying off staff for lack of work. Indeed, we are not quite sure where we are at present.
	It would be nice to think that the SRA could try to encourage--I put it no stronger--a reasonable level of development of businesses by gently increasing orders, if that is appropriate, be it in signalling or in anything else. It would be of great benefit to the industry and is something that would fit in very nicely with the strategic role of the SRA.
	Amendment No. 292 is another attempt to ensure that the SRA and the local authorities work together in the local transport plans and that they consult widely and try to achieve consensus. It also seeks to ensure that the SRA is given a clear duty to acknowledge the close relationship of its policies with those of local transport plan producing authorities, and to co-operate with them.
	Amendment No. 293 puts the same argument in respect of regional transport strategies. It is terribly important that everyone works together. The SRA is on top, so to speak, but it is important that it works together with the regional and local authorities. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support the amendments. They give an indication of what one hopes to see, not so much in the strategy itself but in the way in which the SRA conducts its business on a day-to-day basis. They represent patterns of behaviour, attitudes and approach which would enormously help in reducing the boom/bust syndrome which has bedevilled rail development in the past few years.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments seek to add to the areas that the authority must consider when exercising its functions with a view to furthering its purposes.
	Amendment No. 288 would require the authority to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and the integration of goods with other transport. As I have said, we have already given the SRA specific purposes to promote the use of the railway network for the carriage of passengers and goods and to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport. It will then have to develop particular strategies to carry out those purposes and everything which it does will need to be with a view to furthering those purposes. An obligation to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and its integration with other transport modes seems somewhat superfluous. It would not add to the existing obligations on the authority to have proper regard to freight.
	Amendment No. 289 would require the authority to enable persons providing services and equipment to the railways to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance. I have sympathy with the needs of the supply industry, even if I do not believe that we should add the amendment to the Bill. Clearly we want healthy businesses to supply service providers, to keep our railway running and to help it grow. The authority will give strategic direction to the industry, which has been lacking since the industry was privatised. This will provide certainty to business and enable both operators and suppliers to plan their businesses with more confidence.
	I do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the authority's remit in the Bill specifically to include railway suppliers. Suppliers are commercial businesses which are not subject to the regulatory framework that applies to the operators. Their success depends upon the general health of the railway industry and the ability of railway operators to develop and maintain effective business with suppliers. The Bill gives the authority a wide remit to develop and promote the railway, and gives it specific obligations in relation to how it regulates operators. Provided operators' businesses can be planned with a reasonable degree of assurance--and with the longer franchises that the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority is seeking, they will be able to plan their businesses over a more credible timescale--the operators should be able to plan effective business with suppliers, and give some degree of the assurance to the suppliers which my noble friend seeks.
	Amendments Nos. 289A and 292 require the authority to facilitate the implementation of, and to have regard to, local transport plans. Amendment No. 293 requires the authority to have regard to the regional transport strategies. Of course, we expect the SRA to formulate its strategies and to exercise its functions in the light of local transport plans and regional strategies. However, the process needs to be a two-way one, so that local plans and strategies are consistent with the national framework. This is a task for local authorities as well as the SRA. This is why it is preferable to deal with the relationship in our guidance on local transport plans, and in directions and guidance to the SRA, rather than on the face of the Bill as the amendments seek to do. There are, of course, a lot of plans to which the SRA should have regard and it would be inflexible and unwieldy to try to specify them all in the Bill. Moreover, it would cast doubt on the status of any which were not so specified.
	The authority's role will be to promote rail use within an integrated transport system. This is a national role. Consistent with this national framework the SRA will take account of the views of local and regional bodies. This will involve extensive consultation to identify the opportunities for rail.
	I can assure noble Lords that this process of consultation is already under way and the shadow SRA is devoting considerable effort to developing relationships with local authorities. The shadow authority is starting to receive local transport plans and to assess them, and will continue to consider all local transport plans now that the new regime is in place. On franchise replacement, the Franchising Director has an extensive programme of consultation. Local authorities' aspirations are being cross-checked against franchise owners' bids. The shadow SRA is also involved in giving written and oral evidence on regional planning guidance and in developing a dialogue with regional development agencies. I hope that, given those considerations, my noble friend will withdraw the amendments.

Lord Berkeley: As ever, I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 289 and 289A not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 290:
	Page 121, line 19, after first ("it") insert ("and").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 290 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 291 and 296 to 299.
	Clause 206 gives the Strategic Rail Authority power to invest in bodies corporate. Amendment No. 290 seeks to remove this power. The authority is supposed to be a strategic planning body. What on earth is it doing taking shares in companies? There is no discernible need for such investment in order for the authority to be able to perform its duties. Worse, to acquire shares in this way could give rise to serious conflicts of interest.
	Turning to Amendment No. 296, Clause 210 is a crucial clause in the Bill. It provides wide-ranging powers for the SRA to give financial assistance and secure improvements to the railway. Through this amendment, we aim to find out from the Government what exactly this role involves. Our concern is that the clause has a potential to undermine the commercial judgments of Railtrack and the train operators. The Strategic Rail Authority must take a strategic role, and we are concerned that this clause allows it to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the railway.
	We are also concerned that the Secretary of State will have considerable powers to give directions to the SRA. The clause is so broadly drawn that we need Ministers to clarify exactly when they would give such directions and we seek assurances that the Secretary of State's involvement would be only in limited circumstances. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister could give some examples.
	Amendment No. 296 would ensure that any involvement by the SRA would be on the basis of competitive tendering, ensuring that it does not step in at any opportunity but only when there genuinely is no alternative or when necessary to deal with a possible market abuse situation.
	Amendment No. 297 follows on from the previous amendments and seeks to limit the wide powers of both the Secretary of State and the SRA and to ensure that the railway industry retains the commercial freedom to run and develop the railway. We are seeking a reassurance that the Government are not intending to use this clause to intervene in the day-to-day running of the railway. We believe that privatisation has brought considerable improvements to the running of the railway and levels of investment have doubled since British Rail days. That can continue only if there is stability and the railway industry is left to make its own judgments on the interests of passengers, to whom it is closest. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments challenge the SRA's powers to give financial assistance to the railway industry. Perhaps I may deal first with some specifics and then turn to the wider issues.
	Amendment No. 297 would remove the power of the authority to give grants, make loans, give guarantees and invest in bodies corporate. Bluntly, this would emasculate the SRA. We intend the authority to be the main conduit for franchise payments, for freight grants and for the rail passenger partnership scheme, all of which are inherited functions that involve paying grants. In addition, it must be able to support the industry, should this be necessary, when there is no other viable source of strategic investment.
	Amendment No. 296 would require the authority to run a tendering exercise for any financial assistance which it gives. But this is unnecessary and to some degree inappropriate. The authority already has a duty to exercise its functions in the most economic and effective manner. That may often involve a process of competitive tendering; sometimes it will not--for instance when the SRA pays freight grants in accordance with a published grant scheme.
	Amendment No. 299 is a requirement that any agreements made by the SRA must be consistent with its strategies. This also is unnecessary because Clause 206(1) requires the authority to exercise its Clause 206 powers in accordance with the strategies it has formulated.
	Amendments Nos. 290, 291 and 298 would remove the power for the authority to enter into agreements, or other arrangements, to invest in bodies corporate as a means of financial assistance. That restriction would be undesirable because it would limit the flexibility available to the SRA and reduce its ability to invest in the railway itself, or to get others to do so.
	Amendment No. 298A would insert a provision that the authority may only put terms on its financial assistance provided that these,
	"do not interfere with commercial practices which are essential to industrial investment".
	That is unnecessary as Clause 206(2)(f), which determines the manner in which the authority must exercise its functions, states that it must,
	"enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance".
	That incorporates the concept behind the amendment and would protect commercial practices.
	Flexibility is at the heart of the clause. We want to ensure that public sector financial support is available from the SRA when it is needed in whatever form is most appropriate to the particular case. That is why the powers in the clause are wide and extend to grants, loans, guarantees and direct investment.
	I should make it clear that we do not envisage any change in the existing system of franchise payments to passenger train operators. That is how the core of all public funding reaches the railway network and it will remain so. But the franchising system was originally designed to support a "steady state" railway. It is not necessarily the only way, or perhaps in some cases even the best way, to promote investment in, and development of, the network. We want the SRA to be able to develop new approaches to investment where they seem worthwhile and we want the Bill to enable it to do so.
	I am reluctant to offer specific examples. But there is nothing unique about the idea that investment by the public sector in projects may help to lever in private funding. In principle, it provides some degree of assurance to investors and can help to bridge any gap between the scale of investment required and the likely returns on that investment. That may be particularly relevant in the railway industry where major capital projects require all the investment up front and pay back literally over decades. I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall read carefully what he has said. I may return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 291 to 293 not moved.]
	Clause 206 agreed to.
	Clause 207 [Directions, guidance and advice by Scottish Ministers]:

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 294:
	Page 121, line 45, leave out ("or with the Authority's financial framework").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In moving Amendment No. 294, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 295. Clause 207 allows Scottish Ministers to give directions and guidance to the authority in relation to passenger rail services which start and end in Scotland and for passenger rail services which either start or end in Scotland, and advice to the authority in relation to services which either start or end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement. The authority can decide not to comply with these directions. Amendment No. 295 adds at the end of Clause 207,
	"Where the Authority propose not to comply with the directions or guidance of Scottish Ministers they shall notify the Scottish Ministers of this and their reason for so doing",
	and,
	"Where Scottish Ministers do not agree with the reasons given by the Authority for not complying with their directions they may refer the matter to the Secretary of State".
	There has been correspondence between the Minister's colleague in another place, Mr Keith Hill, and the passenger transport authority most closely associated with the amendments. I understand that that passenger transport authority is satisfied that the amendments have gone as far as they can go. But for the benefit of those who may want to know more, and to know more from the public record, about what has happened in relation to the amendments, I should be most grateful if the Minister could, as it were, read into the record some of the reasons that his colleague gave to that passenger authority for not accepting the amendments and the assurances that he was able to give on that matter. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As requested, it may be helpful to explain why the devolution provisions in the Bill are constructed as they are. We have given considerable thought to the issues raised, which, as has been said, were also raised in another place, but we and the Scottish Ministers remain assured that the present construction is both the most workable and the most effective in terms of devolution.
	The Committee will be aware that railways remain largely a reserved matter. The reason for that is to ensure that there is a Great Britain strategic policy framework for railways. That is a very real concern. The fragmentation brought about by privatisation left the industry with no direction and no ability to develop the network as a whole to respond to increasing demand, still less to encourage demand. The problems which that structural weakness has created are one of the main reasons that we need Part IV of the Bill. Where devolution is appropriate--for example, for roads--we have provided for it, so it should not be thought that the reservation for railways is due to any lack of confidence in devolution; far from it. In the case of railways, even within the reserved framework we have agreed an appropriate level of devolution, but we must not lose sight of the overarching need for a national infrastructure in order to ensure that we meet the needs of the whole nation.
	It was against that background that, during the passage of the Scotland Act, the "McLeish settlement" was agreed. That settlement, among other matters, provided for the Scottish Ministers to have power to issue directions and guidance to the SRA about passenger services which start and end in Scotland--essentially the services currently provided by Scotrail. The settlement also promised that the Scottish Ministers would have the power to give directions and guidance on Scottish sleeper services, provided that there was no impact on other passenger or freight services or on the non-Scottish budget. Furthermore, it was agreed that the Scottish Ministers should be able to give what was then called "non-binding guidance" on other cross-Border services. In the Bill that is called "advice". I am happy to say that the Bill delivers on those promises.
	In all cases it was agreed that the powers of the Scottish Ministers should be exercised "within the GB policy framework". It was agreed between ourselves and the Scottish Ministers that the best way to preserve the GB policy framework was to ensure that directions and guidance from the Scottish Ministers were not inconsistent with directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. That is not a watering down of the McLeish settlement. Scottish Ministers will be addressing Scottish specific issues and they are content that we have delivered on the McLeish settlement.
	I turn to the specific concerns addressed by the amendments. Amendment No. 294 would remove the requirement that the SRA may not comply with the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance when those conflict with the authority's financial framework. Amendment No. 295 would set up a new structure so that where the SRA decides there is a conflict between the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance and those of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is brought in to arbitrate.
	I should like to address Amendment No. 295 first. The concern, I understand, is that it is felt that the unelected authority should not be able to judge between two conflicting sets of directions and guidance from elected Ministers and act, thereby, as "judge and jury". However, I consider that this is a misapprehension. The SRA can in no way act as judge and jury. The Bill is crystal clear: the SRA must carry out the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance unless they are inconsistent with those of the Secretary of State, in which case they must not carry them out. There is no discretion here; no power of an unelected body over an elected one. The SRA simply looks at the facts and takes a view of what it must do on the facts and only on those facts.
	In reality, I expect that this position will never arise because the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers are not likely to be giving directions, guidance, or advice without first talking to one another. If, however, there is any doubt about a matter, the SRA will always be able to ask the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers for clarification. However, should the SRA interpret its directions, guidance or advice in a way in which no reasonable body could, anyone adversely affected may seek a remedy in the courts. This is far more effective devolution than giving additional arbitration powers to the Secretary of State. I can imagine how that suggestion would play in the Scottish Parliament.
	Moreover, as I have already suggested, the case of conflict between two sets of directions and guidance is hypothetical and all parties will be able to ensure that it does not happen.
	Amendment No. 294 looks to the financial framework and takes away the provision that the authority may not carry out the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance where they conflict with the SRA's financial framework. Perhaps it may help noble Lords if I explain that the financial framework is another form of direction from the Secretary of State. It has been separately mentioned in the Bill because it does not deal with strategies and only indirectly with the manner in which the SRA is to carry out its functions and the other directions and guidance powers are linked to the SRA's strategies and functions.
	The financial framework will be a type of direction which specifies the rules and principles which the authority is to observe when exercising its functions in relation to financial and employee matters. It will incorporate such housekeeping matters as salaries, pensions and budgetary management. It will be an essential document in order to ensure the proper working and accountability of the authority as a non-departmental public body, and, frankly, it is normal good management practice for these matters to be directed by one person. As the SRA remains a reserved body, it is proper that the Secretary of State be the person to give directions about these issues. This is entirely consistent with the McLeish settlement and the Scottish Ministers are content with this approach. As the matters covered are housekeeping, I can reassure noble Lords that the possibility of any inconsistency with the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance, which are about railway services, is very remote.
	1 apologise for the length of my reply, but I was invited to respond so that these matters could be placed on the record. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his wide and precise response to my question and for the fact that he was willing to read it into the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lyell: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may ask for clarification. As one who uses sleeper and other rail services which begin and end in Scotland, can he enlighten me on whether there is any possibility of a clash taking place between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State as regards aspects such as financing, particular services and timing?
	The Minister will remember that I served on a committee that looked into the redevelopment of Waverley station in Edinburgh. We were told that, over the coming four to five years, Great North Eastern Railways were hoping to double the number of trains departing from Waverley for King's Cross.
	Can the Minister tell me whether it would be possible for clashes to occur as regards departures and so forth between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I do not think that at this late hour it would be prudent to speculate on where future clashes might occur. The noble Lord has already pointed out that the areas where that form of guidance will be most appropriate will be on which days and times services will run, stopping places and so forth. Those are the normal operational functions of a train service and would be subject to discussion, consultation and resolution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 295 not moved.]
	Clause 207 agreed to.
	Clauses 208 and 209 agreed to.
	Clause 210 [Financial assistance etc.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 296 to 299 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 300:
	Page 123, line 16, at end insert--
	("( ) The repeal of sections 137 and 139 of the Railways Act 1993 (as set out in Schedule 30) shall not come into effect until similar or wider schemes have been brought into operation; and the Authority shall consult the industry on the content of such schemes.").

Lord Berkeley: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 340 and 341.
	Amendment No. 300 is a probing amendment. Sections 139 and 141 of the Railways Act 1993 provide the framework for giving freight facilities and track access grants for rail freight. Schedule 30 to the Bill repeals those sections. The amendment seeks confirmation from my noble friend the Minister that they will not be repealed until similar provision--it is to be hoped bigger and better--is put in their place and that consultation will take place first. I understand that the SRA is about to begin consulting on such provision. Nevertheless, it would be sad if there were a one or two-year gap between the repeal of Sections 139 and 141 of the Railways Act and the introduction of replacement provision.
	Amendment No. 340 is of more substance. It proposes a rail freight council alongside the rail passenger council although much smaller. The amendment states that the council should be statutory and that it should provide representation for the industry.
	The reason behind the amendment is that, whereas the passenger councils are statutory consultees and can find out about things, in the rail freight industry the only people who find out what is going on are the train operators, and not all train operators. There is a particular piece of information about terminals which is available only to members of the so-called "10 per cent club"--those who have 10 per cent or more of the business. In other words, the customers, the hauliers, the logistic service providers and others have no right to consultation on matters affecting the provision of the services. They must rely on their own efforts or the pressure of trade organisations such as the Rail Freight Group or the Freight Transport Association. But neither of those organisations has a locus.
	The approach is not working. I shall not bore the Committee with too many examples; perhaps I may give just two. The last site which might have been suitable for a railroad interchange at Holyhead was a passenger siding. The local authority wanted to close the siding under a compulsory purchase order and build a new road to the port, which we thought odd as the Welsh authority's policy was to encourage rail freight. We only heard about it through some friends on the passenger consultative committee and we are still pursuing the matter. There is no locus for anyone in the freight industry to protest against that proposal, any more than there is in relation to the sale of infrastructure.
	A network change proposal may again seem somewhat abstruse to Members of the Committee, but there is a proposal to close a rail freight terminal in Aberdeen and build two more in its place. The one that is being closed is directly next to the port, and the port says that it wishes to start rail freight. Again, the only two organisations that are consulted on that proposal are Railtrack and EWS railway, both of which, I believe, have a commercial interest in the new development.
	That is not good enough if the wish of the Government is to get more freight onto the railways. It will mean more operators and more customers. It is a wide-ranging and a disparate industry--in the nice sense of the word. Therefore, I tabled the amendment with a view to trying to create something along the lines of the passenger council but very much smaller with a small secretariat and the members of the council not being paid, which I thought was appropriate.
	Amendment No. 341 is an attempt to put into words a duty on Railtrack and others who may wish to close lines, services or anything else to consult with the rail freight council, assuming it exists, before the closure. That sad experience is all too common at present. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his Amendment No. 340 and wish that I had thought of it myself. He has made some powerful arguments and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I share the envy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, of the excellent scheme thought up by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

Baroness Wilcox: I tabled Amendment No. 357A on behalf of private consumers, to deal with concerns raised recently that current legislation is inadequate for ensuring that passengers are properly informed and consulted about service alterations. There was a reluctance recently to display notices at railway stations in relation to Thameslink 2000 closures--as had previously been the custom and practice. Although the authorities were eventually persuaded, some notices were in less than satisfactory locations. That episode highlights the lack of a statutory requirement to ensure notification of service changes.
	Although changes may be advertised in local newspapers, the posting of notices at stations is optional. How many people read their local newspapers to learn of changes to their rail services? Such information should be available at the point at which the public regularly use the service. Passengers ought to be fully informed about changes to publicly funded services and have the opportunity to comment.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 300 relates to payments and grants for freight and seeks to keep the 1993 Act regime, which is to be repealed by this Bill, in place until the authority has set up a new scheme--which it will have the powers to do under Clause 210. It is the intention of the Government and the authority that there should be no hiatus in the provision of grants for freight, so I am happy to give my noble friend the reassurance he seeks.
	I have greater difficulty with Amendment No. 340, for the establishment of a rail freight council more or less along the lines of the rail passengers council. Rail freight is not in the same position as rail passenger services, yet the amendments would give the proposed freight council much wider powers than those in the Bill for the rail passengers council.
	The nature of freight services and the relationship between the customer and the service provider is different from that of passenger services. Freight operators already have a strong incentive to listen to their customers and resolve any problems they may encounter. The role of the rail passengers council and committees will be to speak up for passengers. Freight services tend to be used by private companies that are better placed to represent themselves and to take up complaints directly with the freight operator concerned. My noble friend is a good example of vocal advocacy for the industry. I do not see an equivalence between freight and passenger services in the way that my noble friend suggests.
	My noble friend's amendment would also give the rail freight council power to specify that it must be consulted on any matter which it considered relevant to its duty. That is a very wide remit, which goes beyond any equivalent powers in relation to passenger services that are enjoyed by the rail passengers' council or its committees. To make such a council a statutory consultee on all matters relating to rail freight--major and minor closures, infrastructure sales, network changes and so on--goes rather further than the equivalent on the passenger side and may place an inappropriate and onerous burden on the authority. Therefore, I cannot accept my noble friend's amendments as drafted.
	Amendment No. 341 goes on to require the authority to consult the rail freight council on proposed closures. It would give the authority a statutory power to require Railtrack to retain infrastructure, or take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the infrastructure can be reopened. The authority is charged with supporting freight interests. It will be able to take freight interests into account when considering passenger-related closure proposals. The authority will be able to define its own reasonable requirements of Railtrack in respect of the strategic capability of the network. The setting up of controls on freight assets and their disposal can be pursued through existing routes: the track access conditions and the existing conditions of Railtrack's network licence.
	In addition, the rail regulator is currently considering a new licence condition which would impose on Railtrack controls for the disposal of relevant assets, including the disposal of land. Therefore, I believe that the objectives of my noble friend's proposed new clause are already met through the Rail Regulator.
	Amendment No. 357A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, would require the authority to publish notices of proposed railway closures at all the stations. We have some sympathy with this amendment, but there is a problem. The Bill makes the authority responsible for publishing proposed major closures. However, the difficulty in requiring the authority to publish notices is that it does not have power to do so without the station operators' consent. There are mechanisms within the existing framework to require operators to co-operate. Perhaps they should be examined further. However, the amendment makes me a little uneasy in that it places a statutory burden on the SRA to do something which it will be able to do only subject to a franchising provision, or licensing mechanism, which does not appear on the statute book. I prefer the arrangement to be symmetrical, whether it is done within or without the legislation. However, the noble Baroness makes an important point and, with her agreement, I should like to take the amendment away for further consideration.
	With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that we may return to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his usual comprehensive response, particularly his observations on Amendment No. 300. As to Amendment No. 340, I am sorry that I went over the top and tried to propose stronger measures than those possessed by the body concerned with passengers. My noble friend said that there was a strong incentive for operators to listen to their customers. That is true of passenger operators. Some Members of the Committee have said that that does not always happen. I believe that that is why there is a rail passengers' council. The same applies to freight. As we have heard in other debates, there are a large number of small operators out there. There are some large and small train operators. However, the small customers need a voice.
	I shall read my noble friend's response carefully. I may well return to this matter at a later stage with a slightly different amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 210 agreed to.
	Schedule 15 agreed to.
	Clause 211 [Securing of services by franchising]:

Lord Tordoff: In calling Amendment No. 301, I should point out that, if Amendment No. 303 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 304.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 301:
	Page 123, line 36, at end insert--
	("(2C) The Authority shall not exercise its powers under subsections (2A) and (2B) unless necessary for the purpose of its existing powers under section 30."").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 301, it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 302 to 306. We are concerned that Clause 211 gives the SRA stronger powers to run trains. It goes further than the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 and appears to provide for more state interference in the running of the railway. The amendment would ensure that the SRA would have such powers only as a truly last resort.
	Amendment No. 302 deals with subsection (2), which enables the authority to vary or revoke the designation of services as eligible for franchises. It provides that such power may be used only for the purposes of enabling the authority to provide or secure the provision of services in the circumstances set out in subsection (5). The authority should not have carte blanche to remove sectors of the railways system from the franchising process. Such power should be used only in circumstances where the authority is permitted by the Bill to provide services direct or to secure provision of them.
	I turn to Amendment No. 303. Section 26(1) of the Railways Act 1993 allows the Secretary of State, when the authority selects the franchise, to direct otherwise. The amendment removes that power. The Secretary of State should not be able to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority. That would expose him to all kinds of difficulty, especially as under subsection (3) he also takes power to direct how the appointment is to be made so that the proper tendering process can be bypassed. This provision has not proved to be necessary and, given that it is open to abuse, it should be removed.
	If the amendment is not agreed, perhaps my Amendment No. 304 may be helpful to the Committee. New subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State wide powers not only to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority but also to detect the method of selection of the franchisee. Amendment No. 304 limits the powers of the Secretary of State to prohibit the authority's choice of franchisee to where he has evidence that the person selected is not suitable to be a franchisee. In that case, the authority must give the franchise to another tenderer or retender.
	If the Government insist on keeping the right to direct the authority not to grant a franchise to the person of its choice, the right should be exercisable only where there is firm evidence that the person chosen is not suitable to be a franchisee. Nor should the Government then set about selecting a franchisee themselves or dictating how one should be selected. It should be left to the authority to appoint one from the other tenderers or to retender.
	My final amendments in the group are Amendments Nos. 305 and 306. New Clause 26(1)(b) allows the authority to provide services direct where a franchise comes to an end and no new franchise agreement has been entered into. This gives the authority the power to provide all services direct by not renewing franchise agreements when they expire. The amendment limits these powers to an interim period before a new franchise is granted.
	Assurances from the Minister that there is no intention to renationalise the rail network ring hollow when such wide powers are included in the Bill. The circumstances in which they can be exercised should be spelt out. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I detect a serious note of paranoia behind the noble Earl's intervention in the debate. He believes that the powers in the clauses are designed for renationalisation of the network. As he has already cast suspicion on previous assurances, I do not suppose that any further assurance from me would convince him.
	However, if he reads the clause he will see that we are genuinely talking about the SRA operating services of last resort when all else has failed. We are not talking about backdoor renationalisation.
	Apart from the noble Earl's general concern, Amendments Nos. 301 and 302 reflect a misunderstanding. They seek to tie the provisions for the designation of services eligible for franchising to the process through which the authority must travel before it becomes the operator of last resort. In fact, the two issues are rather separate.
	It is a prerequisite of eligibility for franchising that a service is designated for franchising. We want designation to go further than the requirement so as to indicate not only that a service is eligible for franchising but that it should be performed as a franchised service. That is because of the benefits of franchising over open access as a mechanism for consistent service delivery. Therefore, we are amending Section 23(1) to provide that a designated service should be performed as a franchised service.
	However, the current franchising map should not be set in stone. That is why the SRA needs the powers in Clause 211(2) to de-designate and re-designate services. It is that developing situation that the SRA must operate. There is no connection with the SRA's powers to operate those services under Section 30 as a matter of last resort. That section can come into play only when a designated service goes through the franchise process and that process fails to throw up an acceptable proposal or when an existing franchise operation fails. Therefore, the connection that the noble Earl makes does not really exist.
	Amendments Nos. 303 and 304 would revoke the existing power of the Secretary of State to relax the strict requirement that franchisees must be selected from those who submit tenders. Alternatively, Amendment No. 304 restricts the Secretary of State's power to make such direction to circumstances where a franchisee is not suitable for the job.
	This is a complex process. Before letting a replacement franchise, the franchise director proposes to obtain a direction from the Secretary of State which will allow him to award the replacement franchise without being at risk that an unsuccessful tenderer will argue that the process is not compliant with Section 26. Amendments Nos. 303 and 304 would remove the flexibility which Parliament considered necessary in 1993 and would be a significant hindrance on the SRA's ability to continue the franchising replacement programme. I do not believe that that is what the noble Earl intended but that is the effect of his amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 seek to qualify the duty of the authority to provide services in the absence of a franchise where a franchise process is under way or proposed.
	The authority's Section 30 duties, which are adapted more or less directly from the Railways Act, are there so that, should the private sector fail in its ability to provide services or fail to deliver value for money, the public sector may step in. After all, we must ensure that the trains continue to run and that there is good value for public money. It must be right that the SRA can refuse tenders where they represent poor value for money. In any negotiation it must be possible to walk away and simply say no. Without that possibility, in effect the train operating companies could make any demands that they saw fit. However, it is only possible to say no if there is an alternative public sector capacity.
	The previous government accepted that in 1993 by continuing to allow the British Railways Board not only to pick up failed services but to submit a public sector bid to perform a franchised service. We intend to wind up the BRB. Therefore, there must be an alternative structure for last resort operations. That is what we provide in Clause 212(4) and (5).
	With regard to Amendment No. 306, the duty in the amended Section 30(1)(b) of the Railways Act is the same as the franchise director's current duty to secure a failed service until it can be performed again under franchise. It is not necessary to spell out that the SRA has a mind to re-tender because that is implied. Unless there is a direction from the Secretary of State that the SRA must not seek to re-franchise the service, the SRA will need to look continuously to the opportunity to re-tender because the designation that the service should be performed by franchise will remain. If the SRA were to exercise its duties under this section in a manner which suggests that it rules out a re-franchising process, it would be acting unlawfully.
	The duty in the amended Section 30(1)(a) will apply where a franchise competition has taken place but has proved unsuccessful, either because there were no tenders or because the tenders represented poor value. In the latter case, there will already have been two franchise competitions, because the Secretary of State cannot intervene to reject tenders at the first attempt.
	The market would have been tested exhaustively and failed. At that point, the Secretary of State can be asked to revoke an SRA direction. It would be unlawful for him to be motivated by any prospect other than the fact that the franchising situation had failed. He could not be motivated simply by an overriding desire to place or keep the service in the public sector.
	I hope that I have met the noble Earl's underlying suspicions. They are not appropriate. The clauses provide the SRA and the Secretary of State with a way of delivering a service when the tendering process has failed to produce an effective service.

Earl Attlee: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the amendment. I shall read Hansard even more carefully. He will not be surprised to hear that I shall probably return to the issue in due course, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 302 to 306 not moved.]
	Clause 211 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 307:
	After Clause 211, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:TENDERS AND FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS: RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
	(" . After section 26 of the Railways Act 1993 there shall be inserted--
	"Tenders and franchise agreements: relevant considerations.
	26A. In preparing and issuing an invitation to tender under section 26 and entering into a franchise agreement the matters to which the Authority may have regard to, and make provision for in the invitation to tender and the franchise agreement, include the following--
	(a) what arrangements the prospective franchisee has or will make with bus and other transport operators in respect of bus and other transport services that connect with the franchisee's services;
	(b) what facilities the prospective franchisee will provide, and at what times, for carriage of cycles on trains and on any substitute bus service provided by the franchisee when a train service is not operating;
	(c) whether a reservation facility is made available in respect of cycles;
	(d) whether any fee is payable for carriage of a cycle and, if so, whether such fee includes carriage on any other train (including a train not operated by the franchisee) as part of the same journey;
	(e) what facilities are available for the disabled;
	(f) what arrangements the prospective franchisee has made or proposes as regards the matters set out in section 17(9)."").

Earl Attlee: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 316 and 357. The new clause would enable the authority to use the franchising process more proactively to promote and secure a truly integrated transport system. Too often, rail passengers find themselves stranded on arrival at the station, because there are no connecting services. Train operators should be encouraged through the franchising process to explore with bus and other transport providers the possibility of connecting services. Train operators should also make proper provision for disabled people.
	Cycling as a means of transport is environmentally friendly and healthy and should be encouraged. The Government's downgrading of the previous government's targets for increasing cycle journeys was a retrograde step. It is difficult for cyclists to use trains, because there is not enough space and spaces cannot be reserved. Bus services laid on when track maintenance interrupts a journey do not allow for cycles. Cyclists often find themselves paying a fee for their cycle every time that they change trains.
	Train operators should also be encouraged to make appropriate arrangements with Railtrack for the provision at the station of the facilities referred to in our proposed new Section 17(9) of the 1993 Act. As the authority dictates the terms on which the train companies operate, it should be encouraged to use the franchise system to address those issues.
	Amendment No. 316 addresses operators' concerns about Schedule 17 and the uncertainties caused by giving the regulator more powers to change licences. It is a key to the financial viability of the train companies that the franchise agreements are fixed and cannot be changed unilaterally for the duration of the franchise. That gives operators and investors certainty, which is critical for making the significant long-term commitments that are necessary for ordering rolling stock. The amendment would provide that certainty and ensure that licences are not changed arbitrarily.
	The Minister in the other place said that he had much sympathy with the amendment, but was unable to meet the concerns expressed. We committed ourselves to return to the issue. We hope that Ministers have reconsidered how they might address the concerns.
	On Amendment No. 357, Section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 enables the regulator to secure access for an applicant to a railway facility, such as a station, and such facilities as ancillary services, whether provided or procured by the facility owner. The proposed new subsection provides that such ancillary services can include those listed.
	If a transport system is to be truly integrated, people arriving at stations need information not only as to the train services but also connecting bus and other services. They need to be able to buy tickets which cover their entire journey, preferably by means of new technology which combines fare and travel information with the provision of a ticket. They need somewhere to wait in comfort and safety, especially at night. If disabled, they need good access and facilities.
	Those matters are relevant to the arrangements between train operators and Railtrack and it should be made explicit that they fall within the ambit of the regulator's powers in relation to access contracts. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 307, Amendment No. 307A:
	Line 27, at end insert--
	("(g) what facilities are available for selling network rail tickets;").

Lord Berkeley: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 321 and the other amendments in the group.
	I rather think that Amendment No. 307 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has a lot to commend it. But it is rather sad that he had to include all that information about cycles, mainly because the system for carrying cycles, as he said, is chaotic at the moment because there is no overall policy. My amendment was one way of trying to resolve the problem and his is another way. I expect that my noble friend will say that they are both unnecessary.
	Perhaps I may just talk a little bit about cycles. As the noble Earl knows, reservations for cycles are necessary on some trains. On Virgin trains, it is £3 for a compulsory reservation. If you miss that train and want to catch the next one, you must pay another £3.
	Thames Trains has some very good cycle luggage spaces. You do not have either to reserve or to pay for them. You just cannot use them in the rush hour. That is probably reasonable, given the crowds.
	I am tempted to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and read out a long list. I have a lovely leaflet produced by the National Rail Guide called Cycling by Train which tells you all about every train operator, including those who are not franchised, like Eurostar and Heathrow Express. It tells you what you can and cannot do. I shall not do that at this time of night. But it is a very good guide. I do not know how you obtain those leaflets if you are not a parliamentarian. I believe that the laissez-faire attitude of the past five or six years on cycles must be changed so that there is a policy. The SRA should be under a duty to enforce a policy which is consistent and intelligible to those who might wish to take bicycles on the train.
	Amendment No. 307A deals with facilities available for selling network rail tickets. Again, it is back to the same old question of the ease with which one can buy a ticket. If you go to Oxford, like I do, there are two options: Thames Trains or Great Western. Thames Trains fines you if you do not have a ticket before you board the train. It is a £10 fine if you get caught before Reading and nothing afterwards. Great Western welcomes the purchasing of tickets on the train. Who, apart from aficionados like me, would know that?
	It is even better because, after five years, Thames Trains has brought in a slot machine which enables you to use a credit card to buy a ticket, which is quite useful. The French have had that network-wide for at least 10 years. But, of course, you cannot buy senior citizen railcard tickets from the machine so you have to queue for those tickets. I could go on about this for a long time.
	Half the trouble, and it applies to buses as well, is that those who make the rules do not buy the tickets. I have a very interesting Written Answer from the Minister dated 29th June when I asked him how many employees of the rail regulator and the SRA in shadow form receive free or discounted rail travel tickets from train operators, because it goes without saying that those people will not need to buy their own tickets. The answer was four from the rail regulator and 39 from the Strategic Rail Authority.
	Perhaps I have an odd way of looking at life, but I wondered how keen they would be to ensure that easy selling of tickets would be a number one priority for the new franchises. I ask the question but believe that noble Lords included should know how to buy their own tickets. They should not always go down to the House of Commons travel office. It is good practice to buy tickets. We should buy second-class and queue. We can then make a fuss about it when it does not work. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I have listened to the debate and am convinced that important points have been raised. I find myself in considerable sympathy, particularly with the first amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 307 would give a list of relevant considerations when the authority tenders for, or enters into, a franchise agreement. Many of the issues raised are clearly relevant to what the authority will have to take into account. However, here we are concerned with structures and powers. Those structures and powers already exist.
	The first part of the appropriate structure is the directions and guidance from the Secretary of State, which already exist. They address franchise renegotiation and cover issues such as multi-modal travel, bicycles and disabled passengers. The second part of the structure is how the authority then translates both the directions and guidance of its duties under the legislation. Duties under the legislation consist of both the primary purpose under Clause 204 and the manner in which the authority exercises its function. Those are wide-ranging and incorporate the interests of all users, including, for example, disabled persons and bicycle users.
	Members of the Committee may be unhappy about the way in which in the past the authorities have carried out their duties to take these matters into account. However, the powers and structures are there and augmented in the Bill. I should, perhaps, mention the amendment to the amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, which relates to ticketing. I think that we all recognise some of the problems with ticketing to which he and others have referred. However, the arrangements for selling network tickets are licence matters which already apply to train operators. They are required to provide impartial and comprehensive information and ticketing systems. That includes giving passengers details of the cheapest, as well as the most direct and quickest, journeys available to them. Again, therefore, the structure and powers already exist.
	I turn to Amendment No. 321 which concerns bicycles. The amendment provides for by-laws to be made. However, the powers already exist for the authority to regulate the conduct of those who wish to take their bicycles on the train. Again, therefore, the amendment provides for structures and powers which already exist.
	Amendment No. 357 in this grouping is a comprehensive new clause which wraps together many of the issues raised. We are not convinced that the access contract would be the most appropriate place for this type of benefit. The access agreement is a bilateral contract between two parties. When a particular ancillary service is tailored to a particular contract, in those circumstances it may well be an appropriate medium for delivery.
	However, many matters which have been identified in the amendment and discussed in the debate, for example ticket facilities, are more in the nature of general public interest rather than individual interest by the parties to the bilateral agreement. That suggests that the more appropriate way to deal with them would be either by the licensing system or a franchise. Such a provision would then be able to be applied across the network and enforced by the regulator. In other words, there are a number of different arrangements for securing the benefits described in the amendment. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to prescribe that they should all go into an access agreement as opposed, for example, to a licence.
	Finally, Amendment No. 316, which is rather different from the rest of the group, would prohibit the SRA from seeking consent from the rail regulator for a reference to be made to the Competition Commission to seek modification of consumer protection conditions if the modifications related to matters already contained in a franchise. We have looked carefully at the operating companies' concerns that the SRA should not be able to reopen in a proposed licence modification consumer protection matters agreed or not agreed as part of the franchise replacement process.
	Following representations we provided that only the regulator can modify a licence where the licence holder agrees. Where the licence holder does not agree, the SRA would need to obtain the regulator's consent for referral to the Competition Commission. The practical effect of the Bill therefore is that the position in reality will not be very different from that which applied under the Railways Act 1993. The rail regulator can already seek to modify licence conditions.
	We therefore understand the train operators' concerns but consider that they are exaggerated. Licence changes relating to consumer protection are already in franchise agreements. The issues have rarely been raised so far and we see no reason why they should be more frequently raised in the future. Nor do we see a case for ruling out the ability to seek licence changes in the public interest. The SRA should be able to act where the regulator may act at present under the 1993 Act, with all the safeguards in place that this Bill provides.
	I hope that on this rather disparate group of amendments Members of the Committee will accept my reassurances that, by and large, the Bill already covers such issues.

Lord Berkeley: On the amendments on cycling and ticketing I was pleased to hear my noble friend say that the powers already exist. My only question is: why is nothing happening? Could not there be a little bit of enforcement after five or six years? Perhaps my noble friend could helpfully send a copy of the debate tonight to those whose duty it is to enforce the various issues. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 307A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 307, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: The Minister found that a difficult point to respond to. The Minister described ticketing as "a problem". The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, perhaps has a better appreciation of the situation. I have certainly seen passengers become almost incandescent trying to buy tickets, particularly at Victoria station. Even at Westminster station the machines that are supposed to take notes are, frankly, pathetic.
	Again, I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 212 agreed to.
	Clause 213 [Securing provision of substitute bus and taxi services]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 308:
	Page 128, line 4, after ("may") insert ("by means of competitive tendering").

Earl Attlee: Clause 213 gives the authority the power to secure road transport where railway services are temporarily disrupted or discontinued. Amendment No. 208 imposes a requirement to tender out such services, not only where the service is discontinued as provided in subsection (4), but also where services are temporarily disrupted.
	Competitive tendering is the most appropriate way of securing efficient and cost-effective services. It is a transparent process which is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair. In those circumstances it should be adopted; otherwise over-cosy arrangements may develop.
	There should be no objection as regards urgency. The authority should, as a matter of planning, ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in advance of any disruption and that quotations can, in any case, be obtained from the various potential providers quickly. Clearly, if arrangements have not been made in advance, the contracts would be made "in distress". It is unlikely that they would be robust, fair or even economic. They would frequently be made under the "old pals' act", with all that that implies. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen: Amendment No. 309 has been grouped with my noble friend's amendment, and I shall not be moving it. However, Amendment No. 330, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 222, has also been included in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has asked me to say that had he been present in the Chamber at this hour he would have supported the amendment. Indeed, he is sorry not to be able to be here because he has attached his name to the amendment. Moreover, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who has also attached her name to the amendment, has had to go home because her new electric wheelchair is giving her some problems.
	Amendment No. 330 requires that train station operators provide facilities for licensed taxis at their stations. The licensed taxi has a vital role to play in an integrated transport policy. It provides the link between termini and the passenger's final destination, be it work or home. For elderly and disabled people the licensed taxi is often a real necessity for it can provide wheelchair accessibility and lots of space. It also provides the customer with the security of a regulated fare and a driver who has local knowledge, so customers are guaranteed that they will not get lost.
	At the moment, there is nothing to stop train operating companies offering exclusive contracts to mini-cab firms for the use of railway forecourts. In this situation, licensed taxis are able to drop off passengers at stations but are prevented from picking up passengers or, as I understand they say in the trade, "ply for hire". There are already examples of such an arrangement at Cambridge and Eastbourne where taxi ranks are forced to be some considerable distance from the station. Unless this amendment is accepted, there is a real danger that this trend could develop countrywide.
	To understand why this would be damaging to the disabled community, we need only to look at the Disability Discrimination Act. When regulations are brought forward under that Act, all licensed taxis will have to be accessible to wheelchair users. Indeed, this has been the case in London since 1st January. However, as the Committee will know, mini-cabs are not covered by the Act and are subsequently free from any obligation to be wheelchair accessible. This is the central point. If licensed taxis are not guaranteed access to forecourts, what is a disabled passenger to do when he or she arrives at a station and no accessible vehicle is available?
	Why should elderly and disabled passengers not be guaranteed, as able-bodied passengers are, a suitable vehicle? Surely, this goes completely against both the spirit and many provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and of this Bill, aimed at ensuring that disabled passengers are guaranteed the same level of service as able-bodied people in a truly integrated transport service.
	There is an even more damaging knock-on impact for the taxi service in local communities. In many small towns, station forecourt work represents the main source of income for the licensed taxi driver. If the station operator or Railtrack enters into one of these exclusive contracts with mini-cab firms, why would a local taxi driver go to the expense of adapting his vehicle to be wheelchair accessible, or go to the expense of buying a completely new taxi?
	The net result would be fewer and fewer accessible taxis to serve disabled and elderly members of the travelling public. It is not, of course, acceptable to take the view that as station forecourts are private property, the property owner has the right to deny or restrict access to taxis. The Disability Discrimination Act imposes conditions on other private property; that is, retail premises and places of employment, and taxis have the special qualification of themselves being subject to regulation under that Act.
	This amendment has widespread support. I understand that the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has written to the Minister pressing for the amendment to be accepted. The chief executive of the Disability Alliance has written to the London Taxi Board supporting the new clause and stating,
	"We have disabled people amongst our staff and on our Board of Trustees and they often encounter problems with inaccessible minicabs on railway forecourts, resulting in them having to go some distance in a wheelchair, often with luggage, to reach an accessible cab which is not allowed into the forecourt".
	I think that I have probably said enough to emphasise my point. I hope that when the Minister replies I shall, for once, have something acceptable to listen to.

Lord Burnham: As my noble friend has suggested, the proposed new clause relates to the problems of taxis and parking. Can the Minister help us in any way by giving an assurance that railway stations will be required to produce adequate car parking for all those who wish to use railway station facilities? The right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister asks us not to use our cars, but unless car parking facilities are provided for those who wish to travel to their destinations by train, that will be difficult.

Lord Addington: My name is also added to Amendment No. 330. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has done an excellent job of explaining it. We place upon licensed taxi operators the responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are accessible to those with disability problems. However, we do not place such a responsibility upon minicabs. I take the liberty of reminding the Minister of a discussion we had some nine and a half hours ago--yesterday now--at Question Time. It became clear that minicabs are not covered by much of the legislation which has been introduced to make taxis more accessible to the disabled, to wheelchairs, guide dogs and hearing dogs. Surely if we are to place an extra responsibility on a group, they should benefit from that.
	In my city of Norwich the forecourt of the station is the main point from which taxis operate. They are the traditional hackney cabs. That forecourt seems to be the main thrust of all activity. If they were not allowed to work there, the whole basis of the local economy for taxi drivers would be removed.
	I hope that we shall be given a positive response. Once you have told a group such as taxi drivers that they must help the disabled, they must be allowed to do so; otherwise, we make a nonsense of part of the legislation.

Lord Whitty: There is a danger in this argument of mixing up the question of accessible transport for the disabled with access for the taxi trade to particular venues. There are arguments on both issues but they should not be confused.
	We are concerned here with the responsibility within the railway system for the station operators to provide accessible transport. In this instance it is the responsibility not of the taxi firms or the minicab firms but of the station operators--as indeed it is in terms of parking provisions, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, although local authorities can have some influence on that.
	So far as concerns access for the disabled, since October 1999 Section 21 has required all service providers to adjust any practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of the service. So if, for example, a station operator's policy on access for taxis prevented disabled people from getting access to or from the station, there would be already the potential for a claim under the DDA.

Lord Swinfen: Surely when the rail operator has delivered the disabled person by rail to the station, and that disabled person is ready to leave the station, the rail operator is then discharged of his responsibility. There is a difficulty if the station operator has a contract with a local car hire firm or minicab firm that only its vehicles can wait at the station forecourt. This is why I want this new clause in the Bill so that taxis can be there specifically for disabled and elderly people. It will also help people with large amounts of luggage, which very often do not fit easily into small minicabs.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is again mixing up the two issues. The responsibility is on the station operator to provide access to and from the service he provides. If his contracting arrangements with a local minicab firm cut across that, it is his responsibility; there is a potential claim against him and he must put it right.
	Moreover, as the DDA comes into play from 2004, station operators will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding any physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a facility. That means that station operators should start looking now at their infrastructure to make sure that it is reasonably accessible to disabled people, however they may arrive at the station. It is not only a matter of arriving at the station but being taken from the station, and therefore the noble Lord's point about the end of the operator's responsibility is not the case.
	It may be the case for other reasons that the station operator has made an exclusive contract, but if that contract cuts across that duty then the DDA makes provision for that circumstance. Section 33 of the Act will allow the Secretary of State to designate transport facilities where an operator has entered into such a contract. The result of that designation would be that any provisions relating to accessibility requirements for taxis would have to apply equally to the private hire vehicles which fulfil that contract. In that way, passengers arriving at a station can be sure that they can call on an accessible vehicle to take them on their way.
	I have sought to explain that the DDA ensures the accessibility of taxis, as we discussed earlier; it also makes a provision for disabled passengers to move between taxis and trains. Where the station operator is failing in his duty to provide either an accessible taxi or an alternative, the responsibility is on the station operator, and the Secretary of State has reserved powers in this respect. I do not think it would be appropriate to tackle the issue the other way round, as the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do--that is, to define what is and is not in the appropriate contract for the station operator.
	I return to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Amendment No. 308 would require the SRA to seek competitive tenders before securing the provision of substitute services by road. Such services will normally be procured by train operators. Procurement in these cases is a commercial matter for train operators. The SRA will procure substitute road services only if it is acting as an "operator of last resort". Frequently, the provision of substitute services will have to be done at very short notice as a result of an emergency. Circumstances could arise where substitute rail services need to be secured by the SRA in an emergency if it is operating as an "operator of last resort" and there is an accident or emergency engineering work. In such cases, there clearly would not be time to seek tenders.
	We debated the issue in Grand Committee when my noble friend Lord Macdonald tabled Clause 246. He said then that Clause 246 was an attempt to find a happy medium between the practical concerns of the train operators and the need to ensure that in emergency circumstances a suitable vehicle is there to transport disabled passengers in an appropriate manner. That statement was correct. I hope that the clause we inserted in Grand Committee--Clause 246--is an honourable and acceptable advance. I hope that the noble Earl can accept those explanations and withdraw his amendment.

Lord Burnham: Will the noble Lord, under the terms of the clause, require the rail operator to provide adequate--I mean adequate--car parking facilities for those using that rail network?

Lord Whitty: No, not in the terms the noble Lord requests. The provision of car parking is primarily a matter for the station operator. That can be influenced by the local transport plan because the number of cars affects traffic movements throughout the town or wherever. In some cases it would not be appropriate to attract further car movements--for example, to a city centre station--even if the transport operator was prepared to do so. In other circumstances--for example, in parkway stations--it may be appropriate to try and encourage the operator, either through the LTP or through the franchising arrangement, to provide more parking space. But there is not a blanket answer to the noble Lord's question.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am at a loss to understand why the Minister is so emphatic in his rejection of the idea of providing accessible taxi services away from stations. There is no confusion in the minds of noble Lords who have put forward the amendment as to what is being talked about. The amendment is about having available in the station forecourt, for hire, a vehicle which is accessible to people with mobility problems. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, added a few other subjects which arose in the course of Question Time recently.
	I do not understand the accusation of confusion. We are not confusing means with ends or ends with means. The end is to have accessible transport. The means is to make it possible for accessible taxis, which in most cases means black cabs, to pick up passengers at stations. These exclusive deals between station owners and mini-cab services make that impossible. It is the exclusivity of the deal which makes it impossible. Anyone who has been to Cambridge knows exactly what I am talking about. Anyone who has arrived at Gatwick also knows what I am talking about. If you arrive at Gatwick on an aeroplane and are wheeled, you had better have a huge bus-type minicab, which I am sure costs twice as much as an ordinary minicab, to meet you, because one will not be there waiting. I do not think that this is such a difficult issue. I wish the Government would give some ground on it.

Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may say that, because it is so late, I shall not press my Amendment No. 330 when we come to it later on. However, I did get the impression that the Minister's reply was somewhat muddled. I am not sure that he did not contradict himself while he was replying to my amendment. I shall read with considerable care what he said. I warn the noble Lord that I will be returning to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In my view, it is an extremely important matter. There are stations--I suspect that it is an increasing number of stations--which have come to exclusive contracts with minicab firms to the detriment not only of disabled people but people who have mobility problems of all kinds, including people travelling with large numbers of children and a great deal of luggage.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate. I refer in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, who spoke to their Amendment No. 330, which raises important points about station forecourts. The groupings on this issue seem to be rather peculiar. I blame myself. I did not check them carefully enough this morning. Perhaps it is a smokescreen to cover my Amendment No. 308. However, I am sure that we will return at a later stage to Amendment No. 330.
	I was rather disappointed with the Minister's response. I thought that he was converted to the market. I was thinking in terms of model contracts negotiated by the SRA which could then be drawn on by the train operating companies. It is important that we have these contracts in place so that the necessary contractual arrangements are made, especially for the disabled. We need to ensure that the right kind of transport equipment is available. There is no point in contracting for a coach that is too big to enter a station forecourt. Does the Minister not want to move at all? He does not. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 308) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 39.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
	Clause 213 agreed to.
	Clause 214 agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [Transfer to SRA of Franchising Director's functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 310 to 315 not moved.]
	Schedule 16 agreed to.
	Clause 215 agreed to.
	Schedule 17 [Transfers to SRA from Rail Regulator]:
	[Amendment No. 316 not moved.]

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 316A:
	Page 261, line 16, leave out (""Strategic Rail Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Authority")"") and insert (""Secretary of State"").

Baroness Wilcox: I confess to being slightly confused by the grouping. I can only hope that it is because somewhere among the different amendments to which I shall speak is a prize for me. I hope that the Committee will bear with me. Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G relate to independence for the rail passenger councils from the strategic rail authority. Amendments Nos. 337A and 338B refer to disadvantaged passengers. Amendment No. 338A refers to duties to provide information and access.
	Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G to Schedule 17 are among a number of amendments standing in my name relating to the powers of the body that speaks for passengers of rail services. My amendments have the support of the recently relaunched rail passengers council and have been promoted by the National Consumer Council. As I indicated on Second Reading, I seek to measure the rail passenger council against the government-funded National Consumer Council blueprint, which sets out the key characteristics of a consumer body.
	Rail follows a pattern seen in other sectors where a competitive market does not operate fully and there are regulatory and consumer advocate bodies. Consumer organisations--whether for energy, postal services or rail--need a range of powers to keep the companies and regulators on their toes. That is particularly true of rail, where the long-suffering passenger usually has no alternative when things go wrong.
	The Utilities Bill and Postal Services Bill this Session have enhanced the role of consumer bodies for those sectors by making them independent; giving them a remit for disadvantaged consumers; and imparting powers to access and publish information. While that legislation may not be ideal, it is significantly better than the provisions in the Bill.
	The amendments to Schedule 17 may appear technical but are aimed at enshrining the independence of the rail passenger council from the SRA--transferring all responsibility for establishing, appointing, administering and funding the council and committees to the Government. Regulatory and consumer representative bodies have distinct roles, so it is important that they are--and are seen to be--independent of each other. The rail passenger council network must have the freedom to take and advance its own position, which may at times be critical of the regulatory body and incompatible with sponsorship by the SRA--with its regulatory powers and ability to be a service provider in its own right. The relationship between the authority and the council should be constructive and professional.
	At some point in future, when the personnel and atmosphere have changed, the council may find its activities compromised by a lack of independence. The council's first responsibility and accountability should always be to the passenger. It is difficult to reconcile that objective with the fact that the council's staff will be employed by the SRA, which will also determine the council's budget.
	The Bill improves the powers of the passenger body but nowhere near far enough. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated:
	"It is important that the rail passenger council has an independent view".--[Official Report, 5/6/2000; col. 1035.]
	I hope that the Government will build on that position. If wider powers and enshrined independence are considered necessary in other sectors, they should be necessary in rail. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My amendments in the group build on the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Wilcox. Subsections (7B), (7C), (9B) and (9C) allow the Secretary of State to limit the scope of the activities of the rail passenger council and committees. Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 remove that power. The council and committees have been entrusted with various general duties and should be allowed to get on with their work without the Secretary of State telling them those parts of the service in which they can or cannot become involved. If the council and committees are not allowed to deal with the overall picture, their effectiveness could be severely impaired.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 342 and 343. Subsections (6) and (7) allow the public to be excluded from sections of meetings not only where the items to be discussed are genuinely confidential but also if the rail passengers' council or committee so decides in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State. In the interests of open government, neither the Secretary of State nor the rail passengers' council or committee should have power to make meetings of a public body closed. Any grounds in addition to those already specified in legislation on which they can be closed should be spelt out in the Bill so that they can be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, told the Committee, these amendments are based on similar provisions in other regulatory Bills this Session. Having taken part in the Financial Services and Markets and Utilities Bills I recognise a good number of the arguments. However, the regulatory structure of the rail industry is not the same as for the utilities. Therefore, I should perhaps say a word about the structure of the rail industry.
	Under the 1993 Act OPRAF and the rail regulator share consumer protection functions. That has not worked very well. Therefore, we are consolidating the consumer protection functions in the strategic rail authority. That clearly distinguishes the position here from that in other regulated utilities. I accept that the roles of consumer protection and economic regulation need to be kept separate. That principle was in the earlier legislation, and under these new arrangements they will be. The rail regulator is the economic regulator. The SRA is the strategic body for the industry, with a specific remit under Clause 206(2)(a) to protect the interests of users of rail services. In its armoury it has strong levers to influence the performance of the passenger companies through the franchising process. That is not an undesirable conflict; it is a valuable opportunity for the passenger voice to be registered at first hand.
	I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G would transfer a number of the rail regulator's existing duties in respect of the rail passengers' council and committees to the Secretary of State rather than the SRA. They would make the chairman of the rail passengers' council responsible for appointing the chairmen of the rail passengers' committees, which is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State. In the light of what I have said, it is clear why I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given these duties. The authority is the regulatory body with statutory responsibility for the protection of railway passengers' interests. It is only right that it should also be the sponsoring body of the rail passengers' council and committees.
	The statutory independence of the RPCs is clear. They have clearly defined statutory duties which the SRA will have to take into account in its dealing with them, and they will be free to express their independent views under the sponsorship of the SRA, as they are at present under the sponsorship of the rail regulator. But they will have an integral role within the SRA. They will be close to the decision-makers and well placed to ensure that the SRA's decisions take into account the real issues affecting passengers.
	The amendments also propose that the chairman of the rail passengers' council should become responsible for appointing the chairmen of the committees. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and we believe that that should remain the position. The committee chairmen also serve as ex-officio members of the rail passengers' council. I accept that the council chairman has an interest in new appointments. I am aware that currently he is given an opportunity by the regulator to comment on prospective candidates. All of these committee chairmen posts are advertised locally and are open to interested rail users. The appointments are made on merit in accordance with the guidelines of the Nolan Committee.
	Amendments Nos. 337A and 338B would add to the duties of the rail passengers' council and committees by specifically requiring them to take into account the interests of groups of passengers who are disadvantaged or who have special needs. I recognise those categories from the Utilities Bill, but I do not believe that it is necessary to put them on the face of this Bill. After all, gas and electricity utilities are used by everybody, but rail passengers, while a significant body of people, are not the same as the general population. The rail passengers' council and committees have a duty to represent all passengers and to deal with genuine problems. They will have the freedom to reflect these special needs as appropriate.
	Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to exclude from the remit of the rail passengers' council and the rail passengers' committee specified services or to restrict their remit in respect of specified services. We intend those to be used only in the marginal cases of heritage lines, such as the Bluebell Line, which are not part of the national network and where the powers of the rail passengers' committee would not be appropriate, particularly as regards the lines run by voluntary enthusiasts. That is the only purpose of the exclusion.
	Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 take away from the Secretary of State the power which this Bill gives him to make an order defining circumstances when the public may be excluded from meetings of the rail passengers' committee and the rail passengers' council. Those bodies have asked us to include the exclusion provision for those items on the agenda needed to preserve confidentiality and to discuss issues relating to their management; for instance, individual pay or disciplinary matters. There is no intention of using them in any wider sense.
	Amendment No. 338A sets out a set of duties on the council to make proposals, provide advice and information and represent the views of passengers. That is already covered in Clause 227(4). The wording of the amendment would have some odd results with which I shall not weary Members of the Committee.
	Amendment No. 338A also relates specifically to the rail passengers' council's access to information. It would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations limiting the type of information to be provided and to establish a body to arbitrate in cases of dispute. The council needs access to information about individual complaints, but that is provided by the passenger licence which requires licenceholders to provide the rail passengers' committee with reasonable information for the proper performance of its functions. I expect the SRA and the regulator to co-operate with requests from the council for information. We will be issuing instructions and guidance to the SRA on this matter under provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
	I respect the origin and motivation of the noble Baroness's amendment, but I believe that the regime for passenger representation, which is set out in the Bill, is consistent with other legislation and the needs of rail passengers.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his response, particularly in relation to something I had not even read! It related to the information and I apologise that I did not outline the point.
	I have had a response but not the response I would have liked. The Bill's weakness as regards information suggests that the Government do not really intend the rail passengers' council to be an independent voice in the same way as the GECC should become. I am sorry about that.
	I listened to the Minister's response to my amendment, but at this late hour I shall withdraw it and reserve the right to return.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 316B to 316G not moved.]
	Schedule 17 agreed to.
	Clause 216 agreed to.
	Schedule 18 agreed to.
	Clause 217 [Functions relating to Board's property]:

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 317:
	Page 130, line 2, at end insert--
	("provided that before disposing of any land the Authority shall, in consultation with the local transport authority and other interested persons, consider what potential for rail or other transport related use such land might offer, and protect the land accordingly").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Clause 217 relates to the transfer of property and other rights and liabilities from the board to the Strategic Rail Authority. Before I go further, perhaps I may say that I welcome that transfer because it is possible that the land and other rights will be used in a way which is related to the purposes of the SRA rather than purely to property portfolio purposes.
	Nevertheless, in recent years we have seen large-scale and continuing disposal of such property. If we want to expand the rail network, as we discussed earlier, it is important to ensure that nothing is disposed of which could be used at a later date. That is the purpose of the amendments, which, I confess, are rather infelicitously drafted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose almost identical amendment is grouped with mine, has the right end of the stick, drafting-wise.
	However, I believe that we should consider these issues seriously. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that my hopes for the role of the SRA, as the holder of the property portfolio, are not misplaced. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support Amendments Nos. 317 and 318 and speak to my Amendment No. 319. As the noble Baroness says, there is a remarkable similarity between them.
	As many Members of the Committee will be aware, there is a long history of problems with regard to British Rail land. Even if we ignore the fact that a great deal of the land that was of any use probably has now been sold, I believe that as a result of activities in the past two or three years the situation has improved. However, of the land that remains in the ownership of the British Rail Property Board, probably only 10 per cent is of use for passengers or freight. It is to that that I address my remarks.
	First, my amendment suggests that Clause 217(4) should be removed because I am not happy that the terms of Clause 217 should not apply to Clause 206, which relates to the manner in which the authority exercises its function. I believe that land which is of use for rail should be used in furtherance of the authority's objectives and functions, and so on.
	I was heartened by comments made by my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for railways in the other place, Keith Hill, who indicated that he believed it right that the SRA should be able to hold land if it was likely to be required for use within approximately a 20-year horizon. That seems to me to be strategic, and I hope that the Minister here will confirm the strategic view that was expressed at that time. Therefore, the first part of my amendment refers to the need for consultation and a little strategy before land is sold.
	The second part relates to an issue which I believe can be described in one or two examples. If a piece of land is retained by the SRA and an organisation wishes to acquire it for transport use, be it a car park, a station, a rail freight terminal, a branch line or whatever, the suspicion remains that the SRA, while allowing the organisation to buy it, will require the land to be sold at the highest price that could have been obtained if it had been sold for office or commercial development.
	I do not believe that that is confined to transport. I believe that it is a Treasury rule covering all departments that the highest price must be obtained for a piece of land, regardless of its use. Only 100 or so sites may fall within that category, but they are important sites. It would be nice to think that the SRA could agree with the industry and others and get a commitment from Ministers that they would be free to deal with the issue without having to get the highest price relating to commercial development.
	I hope that that was a helpful comment. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I understand noble Lords' concerns to ensure that surplus land is not lost by default. The aim of the amendments is to give some statutory protection to land that will pass from the British Railways Board to the SRA. Amendment No. 319 would have the further effect of permitting the SRA to dispose of land and property required in furtherance of its purposes at prices reflecting its transport use.
	Clause 217 deals with property, rights and liabilities of the British Railways Board that are not needed by the SRA for the exercise of its other functions. In other words, the disposal arrangements under Clause 217 apply only where the SRA considers that land does not have a railway potential. There is therefore no statutory impediment to the SRA retaining land that has a reasonably foreseeable railways use. Clause 217 enables the Secretary of State to give the SRA a direction about how land that could serve a transport use other than railways is to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by the SRA. That could include a direction to consider alternative transport use before disposal.
	There would need to be a strong case for supporting the industry by disposing of land at less than open market value rather than by the more transparent way of using the SRA's broad financial powers under Clause 210. Cases in which there is a conflict between transport use and land value will be considered by the SRA on an individual basis.
	I recognise that the sales programme of the British Railways Board caused alarm in some quarters. That is why we suspended sales of remaining BR land in July 1998 and asked BR to undertake a review of its land holdings, which was completed last September.
	The review showed 1,400 sites, of which only 200 had physical characteristics that would make them suitable for transport use. Transport groups and local authorities subsequently registered an interest in more than that number of sites. Many of the remainder are small, disparate sites, or ones with development problems such as poor access. A large number are remote from operational railways and have no conceivable transport use.
	Following the review, we put in place new procedures that ensure that possible transport uses are identified, give priority to transport use and enable essential transport needs to be safeguarded. BR's Rail Property Limited acts as agent for sales and the shadow SRA scrutinises sites for strategic purposes.
	Since we lifted the suspension of land sales, Rail Property Limited has initiated the first phase of sales by issuing formal notification of its intention to market 600 sites. Registrations of interest were invited from transport organisations and local authorities. They are now being considered by the shadow SRA.
	Some land sales are going ahead where no transport interest is registered in the land, where the land is being sold for transport use or where the British Railways Board is legally committed to a sale.
	The shadow SRA is currently reviewing sites where a potential transport interest has been identified and is consulting, particularly with freight interests. The SRA will consider very carefully any potential freight sites and will not seek to sell them ahead of others in the portfolio, except where there is clear demand from transport operators for freight use.
	Land decisions will be taken in the context of the SRA's emerging strategy. The shadow SRA is developing procedures for the rigorous evaluation of the potential of sites. I am pleased to announce that the shadow SRA intends to appoint a new advisory board to review sites and advise on potential transport use. The advisory board will have an external chairman and members reflecting freight, passenger and local authority interests. I hope your Lordships will welcome that robust, independent source of advice.
	The SRA will withhold sites from the sales process where potential strategic transport use can be established that is consistent with local transport plans. That will allow time for detailed consideration of future ownership and use and for obtaining any necessary planning consents. I hope that those assurances answer the concerns expressed about whether the sales process has identified all relevant sites, and the fear that it could pre-empt this year's local transport plans.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley said on Second Reading that he was not sure that the Minister's message had got through to the shadow SRA. I assure him that it has. That is demonstrated by the careful way in which any disposals are being considered.
	I quote a few illustrations. Sites such as Menstrie and the Abbeyhill Loop are being offered for sale to Railtrack, and sales of all sites on the proposed Oxford to Cambridge route have been suspended until a decision is taken on this important proposed new rail scheme. I can assure the Committee that the shadow SRA is taking a strategic approach. The proposed property advisory board will assist this task.
	Those arrangements strike the right balance between disposing of surplus land and ensuring that key sites for future transport use are identified and safeguarded. I hope that, in the light of these explanations and assurances, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That was an extremely full and interesting response. I am delighted to hear in particular of the possibility that the old Oxford-Cambridge line may be reinstated in all its glory. I remember it well.
	What the Minister said deserves careful study. It makes me regret all the more that the idea of a Strategic Rail Authority was not brought into legislation some years ago because we might then have avoided some of the nonsenses which arose out of a purely commercial attitude to land, which was exhibited by the BRB. But we cannot look behind us; we must look ahead. For the moment, and probably for good, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos. 318 and 319 not moved.]
	Clause 217 agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 320:
	After Clause 217, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Review of British Transport Police functions
	:TITLE3:REVIEW OF BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE FUNCTIONS
	.--(1) The Authority shall review and, within a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on the discharge of police functions on railways and on the London Underground.
	(2) In carrying out a review under this section the Authority shall consult Transport for London and any other body which appears to the Authority to have an interest in the provision and use of railway services and the London Underground.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The purpose of this amendment is to seek a review of policing on the mainline railways and the London Underground and to determine how the needs of policing may be met most efficiently in future.
	In a way, this is a left-over from the rail privatisation process when the matter of policing of the rail system was left in limbo. In the future, one might, for example, consider the continuation of a national force, such as the British Transport Police is today, or the transfer of responsibilities to local forces with the present funding of £93 million being used to meet the cost. Alternatively, some rail services may prefer to use private security officers for the tasks of monitoring such matters as bad behaviour at railway stations or painting on railway property and so on.
	There will also be a need to take into account the recommendation of Professor Uff following the inquiry into the Southall rail accident because he said that it was unacceptable that a technical accident investigation should be directed or controlled by the British Transport Police because there was a lack of expertise and depended on outside advice. Most of the deficiencies which he found in parts of that investigation were caused by those inadequacies.
	The matter of the future of the British Transport Police should not be allowed just to drift along. It should be addressed now so that when a suitable legislative opportunity arises--perhaps associated with other police legislation--some properly thought-out proposals for the railway and Underground policing are ready to be put into action. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support this amendment. I was not expecting to but in the past week I have been deluged with information from freight train operators saying that a large number of incidents have taken place in which their drivers were bricked; that is, having bricks thrown at the cab through the open window.
	There have been incidents in Merseyside, Tyneside and many other parts of the country. Like everybody else, train drivers have a right to be able to go about their work without risk of injury. The latest incident was an attack by 20 youths with bricks in Tyneside. Luckily, the driver was not hurt. When he reached his destination he reported the incident to the British Transport Police and asked for an escort on the way back. The alleged reply was, "You haven't been hurt so you won't get an escort". I cannot believe that was true.
	It is indicative that whereas before the police had to deal with contained areas of this potential problem, it is almost as if the complete route network will be affected in future by vandalism. We all know that as train speeds increase, the consequences of vandalism could be very serious. The review is important. In the mean time I would support anything we can do to ensure that the police have enough resources to carry out these duties.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I recognise the problems which have given rise to the amendment. I have three basic answers. First, the British Transport Police Committee already produces a report every year on BTP policing of the railways and London Underground. Although it is produced by the committee rather than the SRA, it follows the format that Home Office police forces use. It includes details of BTP's main activities and developments, and statistics on the force, including crime figures for the area. The Committee will continue to produce the report when the British Transport Police move to the SRA from the British Railways Board.
	Secondly, the police committee invites Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to undertake a primary inspection of the force every three years with a detailed assessment of the police's operational and organisational performance by an independent expert body. That report is published. A copy is sent to railway businesses and other interested parties. That is in line with Home Office forces and will continue under the SRA.
	Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the need for an independent national police authority. I can confirm that we have announced our intention to create an independent national police authority when a legislative opportunity arises. It is likely to be given many of the duties now required of a Home Office police authority, including consulting the community regarding policing and preparing an annual report on how that policing has been carried out. We shall consider again at that time the position on inspections of the force.
	It is probable that those requirements will be placed on the BTP authority in the legislation to bring them into line with Home Office forces. That is the correct place for such statutory requirements. I hope that that convinces the noble Baroness that we are very much concerned with the issues to which she referred in moving the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support and, more particularly, the Minister for an interesting response. I am sure that my noble friend will read it and consider what to do. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 19 agreed to.
	Clause 218 [Power to make bye-laws.]:
	[Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
	Clause 218 agreed to.
	Schedule 20 agreed to.
	Clause 219 agreed to.
	Schedule 21 agreed to.
	Clauses 220 and 221 agreed to.
	Clause 222 [Regulator's power to require provision etc. of railway facilities]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 322:
	Page 133, line 1, leave out ("a period") and insert ("such reasonable period as is").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 322, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 323 to 329.
	New Section 16D leaves it to the regulator to specify the period within which representations under Clause 222 are to be made. Amendments Nos. 322 and 323 introduce an objective rather than a subjective test. It is extremely important that any person at risk of receiving a direction should have adequate time to make representations. There should be some protection against the regulator imposing an unrealistic timetable.
	Subsection (7) gives the regulator a wide-ranging power in connection with an application for a direction to provide, improve or develop railway facilities to require,
	"the person specified in the application, the applicant, or any other person",
	to provide information. Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 remove that power in relation to "any other person". The power given to the regulator is far too wide. It is appropriate that the applicant and any person the target of the direction should be open to such a requirement, but not the whole wide world.
	Amendment No. 326 requires the regulator to use the information obtained under subsection (7) only in connection with the proposed direction and to compensate any person providing information for its wrongful disclosure. As the Bill is drafted there is no restriction on the purpose for which information obtained can be used, and no penalty for improper disclosure. Information may be commercially and price sensitive and should be properly protected. As with unlawful disclosures of information that must be provided under other sections of the Act, compensation should be available for any person suffering loss as a result of such disclosure.
	Subsection (2) enables the regulator to require the applicant for a direction to reward or make payment to the recipient of the direction. Amendment No. 327 limits such power to cases where the regulator is satisfied that the recipient will not otherwise be adequately rewarded, as set out in new Section 16E.
	It is right that no one who is forced by a direction to provide, improve or develop a railway facility should lose as a result. The Bill however requires the consent of the authority to any application for a direction and runs a serious risk of creating an investment bottleneck as a result. An applicant should only have the burden of reward or payment to the recipient of a direction imposed on him if the person directed is not otherwise going to receive adequate reward. Otherwise applications will not be made and the investment bottleneck will worsen.
	Finally, subsection (5) gives the regulator complete discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to the recipient of a direction on its variation or revocation. Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 specify that the amount of compensation represents the actual loss to the recipient. Any other basis for compensation would be unfair, either to the recipient of the direction or the applicant. In those circumstances there is no case whatever for leaving the amount to the discretion of the regulator. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am aware that Members opposite wish to oppose the whole of this clause and that that will be the most appropriate opportunity for me to address any concerns on the fundamental principles of what the clause does and why we consider it necessary. With the indulgence of the Committee I should therefore like to confine my remarks to the amendments before us.
	We recognise that a direction is a powerful tool, possibly requiring a lot of work from a facility owner to carry out and possibly requiring him to change his business and investment plans for a period. That is why the safeguards of procedure exist in the Bill, so that the regulator can be assured that he is requiring action from the right person and that those affected have been consulted.
	Amendments Nos. 322 and 323 change the periods for written representation from a period specified by the regulator to a "reasonable" period specified by the regulator. These amendments are really not necessary. I can assure the Committee that the regulator, as a matter of public law, must always act reasonably and this general rule would apply to the period for a written representation. If he gave an unreasonable period to respond to a notice, then he would be open to legal challenge.
	Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 add the authority to those persons from whom the regulator can request information to help him determine an application. This seems to us not only unnecessary but also, I fear, inappropriate. The Rail Regulator and the SRA are both regulators, and both have an equally important role to play. This is a relationship of equals, distinct and complementary. It would, I feel, be wholly wrong for the regulator to be able to direct the SRA. If this were truly necessary, then it would be for the Secretary of State to direct. However, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that we do not, in fact, consider these provisions necessary. This process is not initiated by the regulator, but either by the SRA or with the support of the SRA. It will, therefore, be the SRA that is keen to promote a scheme as part of its strategic plan for the network. This power will only ever be used when the improvements cannot be obtained by other means and the SRA will have to be fully behind them.
	Amendment No. 326 is also unnecessary. It states that the regulator may not use information given to him for the purposes of the direction; that he may not disclose such information; and that he would be liable for compensation should he disclose information. The issue here is of course commercial confidentiality and the need to protect sensitive information. We are aware of the importance of such confidentiality and it would be improper for any public body to misuse information. But, in common with other regulated utilities, the matter is already dealt with: in this case in the Railways Act 1993 into which the provisions in Clause 222 will be inserted. Section 145 of the Railways Act provides that information obtained under that Act shall not be disclosed without consent. It also makes such disclosure a criminal offence. There are exceptions to the prohibition on disclosure, such as disclosure of information to other regulators for the purposes of their functions, but that is wholly appropriate and the same as for other utilities.
	Amendments Nos. 327, 328 and 329 look at variation or revocation of a direction. In another place, the Opposition raised the case in variation or revocation where the facility owner had already carried out work, which, because of the variation or revocation, proves abortive. They argued that, in such a case, compensation should be payable. We agreed and amendments to provide compensation were put forward and accepted on Report in another place. However, I welcome the opportunity to be able to assure the Committee that the Bill now provides compensation if work proves abortive. The regulator will be able to determine the appropriate level of such compensation.
	I shall now deal briefly with the effect of new Section 16G(4) and (5) to the Railways Act 1993, to which these amendments relate. Where the regulator gives a direction under new Section 16A of the Railways Act to develop a facility he must be satisfied that the facility owner will be adequately rewarded for it through a combination of payments by the applicant, future receipts, and so on. There may be circumstances where the applicant seeks to vary a direction, either wishing to extend or to cut back on the facility. This does not change the presumption that the varied facility must be the subject of an adequate reward--hence new Section 16G(4).
	Sometimes, however, the facility owner may have put a large amount of work and resources into a facility in pursuance of a direction which will be wasted work if the direction is varied or revoked. In the case of a variation, the adequacy of the reward under Section 16G(4) relates to the new facility and not what was originally planned. Therefore, it is difficult to apply Section 16G(4) to liabilities that may have been incurred in connection with the original facility but are of no relevance for the new facility. Where a direction is revoked, Section 16G(4) may be of no use at all.
	It is because of this that we amended Section 16G to give the regulator an additional power to determine liabilities, incurred in accordance with the old direction, which have been wasted. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the principle of this is right. I can assure noble Lords that these amendments are unnecessary, as a result of the changes that we have already made.
	Amendment No. 327 provides that the regulator cannot order compensation under Section 16F(5) if the facility owner is to be adequately rewarded under Section 16G(4). I agree with this. It is why Section 16G is expressed in terms of a discretion for the regulator. He will only exercise the power where he needs to, such as where something is not caught through the adequate reward mechanism of Section 16G(4). It would be unreasonable to exercise the power if it amounted to double compensation and it is not necessary to express this.
	Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 require that compensation should determine what loss has been, or is likely to be, suffered and set off any sums received against this net from this benefit. I assure the Committee that the regulator will be in the business of assessing the appropriate level of compensation and this will constitute the wasted works less any receipts. Again, these amendments are unnecessary. It would be unhelpful to limit the regulator's discretion by specifying a formula. The regulator will look at all the circumstances of a variation or revocation and act in the most appropriate way. With those explanations, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's informative response to my amendments. With the usual caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 323 to 329 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 222 shall stand part of the Bill?

Earl Attlee: This key clause goes to the heart of the new powers which the Government are taking in this Bill. It gives the regulator powers to direct investment. This seems to be unwarranted interference in the operation of a private company and is of considerable concern to Railtrack. Ministers have said that this power will be used only as a last resort, but we do not see why it is necessary at all.
	There are some limits on the power, which is some comfort, but it remains the case that the regulator has only to ensure that "adequate return" is provided for this compulsory investment. Nowhere is it set out how the regulator is to determine what an adequate return is, or even where the capital is to come from.
	This clause seems unnecessary and gives powers to the regulator and the SRA which have the potential to be used unwisely. The current incumbents may proceed with caution but their successors would not be bound to take a similar approach. We remain uneasy at the extent of these powers to direct a private company where it must make its investment. We therefore oppose the Question that Clause 222 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Clause 222 is a new power for the rail regulator to give a direction to a person in a position to do so to improve an existing facility or to provide a new facility. This power can be exercised only on an application from the authority or a third party with the consent of the authority. This power will ensure that improvements can be made to the network where the authority considers that they are in the public interest.
	The clause is not designed to replace the normal commercial judgments and investments of facility owners such as Railtrack or EWS. Nor does the new section preclude voluntary arrangements between a facility owner and someone wishing to agree terms for an enhancement. The clause will enable a facility to be built which is in the public interest. In such a case the SRA can invest in the facility and the clause provides the element of compulsion necessary to ensure that an investment takes place.
	The clause does not replace Condition 7 of Railtrack's licence which requires Railtrack to make reasonable enhancements. However, Condition 7 applies only to Railtrack and not to other facility owners. In the case of Condition 7 only the regulator can enforce a direction and third party rights arise only in the event of a breach of a final or provisional order. Under this clause, in contrast, the applicant will be able to take action to enforce the direction and third parties may also be able to take action if they are prejudiced by non-compliance with the directions.
	There may well be cases where the SRA considers that there is a strategic need for a new or improved facility and the person in control of the facility may have a short-term view not wishing to make the investment or may have other priorities. It is in these cases that this clause will provide the balance between the interests of facility owners and the long-term strategic needs of the railway.
	An improvement may be sought by a third party applying direct to the rail regulator, but they must have the consent of the SRA. This will ensure that there is a genuine interest wider than the commercial interest of one part and that it fits with the wider aims of the authority. In all cases the rail regulator must be satisfied that there will be adequate reward for the improvements or new facilities. This will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It means that the regulator will take a view that the facility owner will not be out of pocket. This does not mean that the facility owner must be remunerated for the facility in advance. We have made it clear that the regulator is able to take into account indirect receipts and other benefits that are likely to accrue to the facility owner. Where the rail regulator agrees to revoke or vary a direction to provide facilities, he must ensure that there is adequate compensation, as appropriate, for the work that has already been carried out.
	The person who is to be directed must be consulted. While he will have to do everything reasonably practical to carry out the direction, a person will not remain liable if he does not have the necessary powers or rights. For example, it may be reasonable for a person directed to use all reasonable endeavours to apply for planning permission, or even to promote a Transport and Works Act order, but it may not be reasonable to say that he has failed to comply with the direction if planning permission is refused.
	There are some cases where it would be disproportionate to apply this power--for example, in the case of heritage railways, which are not part of the strategic network. We have therefore given the Secretary of State the power to exempt certain railway facilities from the power.
	This is a power that we would only expect the SRA to request as a last resort. As a check, the final decision belongs to the rail regulator. He will be operating under his duties in Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including the duty to act in a way which he considers will not make it unduly difficult for the holders of network licences to finance their activities.
	We agree that it is normally the duty of the railway industry, facility owners, franchise holders and others to invest sensibly for the development of the railway, but there may be cases where investment which should occur does not. It is reasonable in those cases for the regulator to have the power to ensure that vital improvements are carried out where there is no voluntary means of securing them.

Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that although condition 7 of Railtrack's licence requires it to provide for the reasonable requirements of its customers, there is a let-out which states that it does not need to do anything that would put its finances in jeopardy. There have been an awful lot of requests for investment to Railtrack, which has not happened. I believe that it is essential that the clause remains in the Bill for that very reason. If the SRA, in trying to be strategic, says to Railtrack "Will you invest?"--and it says "No"-- there is nothing the SRA can do about it without this clause.
	Secondly, if the industry is lucky enough to get a few crumbs from the announcements tomorrow and later this week--which I hope it does--that investment has to be invested where the Government want it to be, presumably through the SRA. I certainly believe that this clause must stand part of the Bill.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Perhaps I can just tempt him to give me an example of where the power would be used. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, appears to have got closer, but I cannot picture a situation where the power would be necessary.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Again I do not want at this time of night to indulge in trying to invent speculative cases. I rest on the assurances that I have given to the noble Earl. I ask him to withdraw his objection to Clause 222 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 222 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 330 not moved.]
	Clause 223 [Amendment of objectives]:
	[Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 not moved.]
	Clause 223 agreed to.
	Clause 224 [Penalties]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 333:
	Page 138, line 22, at end insert ("; and
	(d) the desirability of providing a financial incentive for the owners of the railway network to run more trains and for a fair division of responsibility for train delays,
	but no policies may be adopted that will have the effect of imposing disproportionate penalties or materially altering the parameters within which an existing franchise was granted").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 333 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 334 to 337 and 371.
	This amendment is designed to allow us to explore the new provisions for the imposition of fines and penalties. We all accept that as a last resort there needs to be a penalty regime to punish breaches of obligations. However, these powers are wide-ranging and it is in the interests of both the railway operators and the travelling public that policies on enforcement are clear and issued in advance.
	In particular, there needs to be guidance on the proportionality of any such fines. There has been concern about the provision for unlimited fines contained in the Utilities Bill. It appears that similar powers are contained in the Bill and there is no indication of the scale of any such penalties. We seek the assurance of the Minister that any fines and penalties will be reasonable, proportionate and based on clarity over the breach of obligations.
	There is a clear risk that, if such clarity is not forthcoming, the provisions in the Bill would allow a maverick regulator to pursue an unreasonable course, which would then be challenged in the courts, wasting the resources of the railway company and that of the regulator, to the detriment of the travelling public.
	It is important that there is sufficient time for representations in relation to penalties to be made. The timescales in the Bill are short and Amendments Nos. 334, 335 and 336 bring the timescale into line with the time for representations in relation to orders under Section 56 of the Railways Act 1993.
	Subsection (1) gives the appropriate authority two years in which to serve a penalty notice. Amendment No. 337 reduces this period to one year. One year should give the appropriate authority time enough to impose a penalty notice. Any authority that takes longer than one year, which is in any event more than adequate, to deal with a contravention is not doing its job properly and the Bill should not encourage such slacking by allowing such an over-generous time for imposition of penalties.
	Under new Section 57B the authority and the regulator are to publish policies in relation to penalties. That paragraph stipulates that failure to publish such policies does not invalidate any penalty imposed. Amendment No. 371 allows for adjustment of any penalty imposed before publication if it is excessive by reference to such policy.
	If a penalty is imposed before the relevant policy has been formulated, it may turn out in the light of any such policy to be wildly excessive. That could lead to vastly differing penalties imposed for the same default. It is rightly Parliament's intention that penalties should be governed by published policies and that anyone who suffers as a result of a delay in publication of those policies should have a remedy. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments all impact on the enforcement regime which the Bill enhances from the provisions in the Railways Act 1993, specifically because past regulators have complained that they did not have sufficient tools to ensure that problems are put right both effectively and speedily. I agree that it must be fair to train operating companies and facility owners, but it must also be fair to the users of the railway.
	Noble Lords will also have in mind that enforcement is the end of the process. It means that an operator or facility owner has already failed to meet its contractual or licence obligations. The regulator and the SRA propose to improve the positive incentives to drive performance, whether by replacement franchises or as a result of the periodic review of the access charges for Railtrack. The enforcement regime is the other side of the equation.
	Amendments Nos. 334, 335 and 336 all impact upon the timetables laid down for various parts of the enforcement regime and extend the timescales. There is a balance to be struck here. Yes, we must allow for reasonable periods but, equally, the enforcement regime must have the teeth to be effective. Our intention has been to speed up the enforcement in appropriate cases. We consider that the timescale for notice requirements for any modification of a proposal to impose a penalty is open to expedition because a modification could be more than trivial, but nevertheless easily and quickly dealt with. For example, the regulator or the SRA may wish to draw attention to some additional facts which justify the imposition of a penalty which they consider to be beyond dispute.
	But we are not casting the framework in stone. The periods which we have specified are minima which the authority or the regulator would need to extend where this would be appropriate. It would normally be appropriate to extend the timetable if the operator were being required to respond to a substantial series of new proposals to impose a penalty. If the regulator or the SRA imposes an unreasonable timetable on the facts of the case it will be open to challenge. But we want the process to be flexible. As regards the 14 days for paying penalties, of course operators will have the opportunity to apply for an extension under Section 55(8) and an unreasonable refusal can be challenged. That benefit was not in the Railways Act.
	These arguments hold true for all these amendments. I repeat, the periods are minima. But if there is a serious ongoing breach, for example, we want the regulator and the SRA to be able to drive enforcement action at the most appropriate speed with regard to the nature of the breach, the complexity of the facts and the nature of any modifications.
	Amendment No. 337 would reduce the time limitation period beyond which a breach of a franchise or licence may not be penalised from two years to one year. On the face of it that seems perfectly reasonable as it would bring the limitation period into line with that provided for other utilities in the Utilities Bill. However, this is one of those occasions when we have had to look at the different circumstances of the railways industry. We consider that in this case the longer two-year period is more appropriate.
	Railway projects are different because they can be very large infrastructure projects which can have very long lead in times. For example, capacity improvements on the east coast main line which are currently under discussion will be a long-term project. It could be a year before it becomes apparent that a breach has even occurred. Once the rail regulator or the SRA is aware of a breach it needs to investigate it so that it is content that a contravention truly has occurred. That will take time. On balance, we think that a two-year limitation period is fair. It will mean that companies cannot be penalised for actions long in the past and it will therefore allow them to plan their business with certainty. But it will also allow time for a breach to become apparent and be investigated, so that even the big projects have an effective means of enforcement.
	Amendment No. 371 addresses the transitional provisions in the Bill and would require that, where a penalty is imposed before the SRA or the rail regulator has published its statement of policy towards penalties, any penalty should be repaid, if, and to the extent that, it would have been materially lower under the policy. While I can understand the concern behind the amendment, I do think that it is unnecessary. The firm intention is that both the SRA and the regulator will have policies in place from the time of commencement, and the rail regulator is preparing such a draft policy in concert with his review of access charges. But policies will be illustrative and not determinative of the amount of the penalty. What determines the penalty is that it must be of a reasonable amount and that will be the case whether or not a penalty policy has been published. When our provisions are commenced the regulator and the authority will be under a duty to prepare a policy statement within a reasonable time. What this transitional provision says is that if, while a penalty policy is being prepared, an incident occurs which must be penalised, and that penalty is in every respect reasonable, it cannot be impugned on the technicality that the regulator's or the authority's policies have not been formally published.
	Both the requirement for a penalty to be reasonable, which includes the idea of proportionality, and the requirement for a policy to be formulated are additional protections for railway operators in the Bill. There are no such requirements under the Railways Act.
	Amendment No. 371 also misunderstands the nature of the policies. These will not comprise a firm tariff of penalties but rather constitute guidelines, at a fairly high level, of what the regulator and the authority will take into account in deciding whether to impose a penalty and what will go into the calculation of that penalty. The policies will not be so specific that a penalty imposed before publication could be reopened immediately after publication in the manner suggested by the amendment.
	Amendment No. 333 would affect the statement of policy made by the rail regulator and SRA towards penalties and require them to include the need for a financial incentive for owners to run more trains and for a fair division of responsibility for train delays. It would also require that policies must not impose disproportionate penalties or materially alter the parameters within which a franchise was granted. Setting aside that train operating companies are not owners--and so this would bite only on Railtrack and other facility owners and therefore be ineffective--I think that the Committee will agree that the general aims are perfectly good ones for a penalty policy. However, we consider that the amendments are unnecessary and do not address the issue in the most helpful form to achieve the aims of a better and more efficient railway. As I have said, we are increasing positive incentives to improve the railway through such things as franchise replacement, which must be the most appropriate way to tackle these aims.
	Before I complete my remarks, I should like to take this opportunity to inform noble Lords of two related matters on which we propose to table amendments on Report. They both arise from developments on the Utilities Bill which we propose to follow. First, we propose to amend the Bill to provide that no penalty imposed by the regulator or the SRA may exceed 10 per cent of turnover of the licence holder, licensee or franchise operator. Turnover will be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State, subject to an affirmative instrument.
	Secondly, we propose to amend the Bill to ensure that the regulator or the SRA does not impose a licence penalty on the licence holder until it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is by the regulator under the Competition Act. This will deal with the issue of double jeopardy.
	I hope that noble Lords will welcome this announcement and that, with my earlier explanations and reassurances, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am a little disappointed that the Minister thinks that my amendments are unhelpful. All of my amendments are designed to be helpful. I thank the Minister for his explanation of why my amendments appear not to be perfectly drafted and I thank him also for giving advance warning of the amendments that he intends to table at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 334 to 337 not moved.]
	Clause 224 agreed to.
	Clauses 225 and 226 agreed to.
	Schedule 22 agreed to.
	Clause 227 [Freight assistance by Scottish Ministers and Welsh Assembly]:
	[Amendments Nos. 337 to 339 not moved.]
	Clause 227 agreed to.
	Clause 228 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 340 and 341 not moved.]
	Schedule 23 [Finances and procedures of rail users' consultative committees]:
	[Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 not moved.]
	Schedule 23 agreed to.
	Clauses 229 and 230 agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 344:
	After Clause 230, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DIRECTIONS REQUIRING GRANT OF LEASE
	(" . In the Railways Act 1993, omit section 17(5).").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 344 would insert a new clause after Clause 230 which comprises only a simple phrase, seeking to delete Section 17(5) of the Railways Act 1993. Section 17 states that:
	"Nothing in this section authorises the Regulator to give directions to any person requiring him to grant a lease of the whole or any part of a railway facility".
	The amendment addresses the use and running of railway stations. It would provide that the regulator may intervene to ensure that adequate space is made available in railway stations for the provision of facilities for passengers, rather than being allocated by Railtrack for commercial trading.
	Railtrack currently manages 16 major stations and seeks to take over many more when the current franchises expire. This is a matter of concern to the train operating companies and to ATOC. The amendment would enable an appeal to be made to the regulator if a proposal to redevelop a station is disadvantageous to passengers or to franchise train operators.
	An example of the way in which the redevelopment of a station can be disadvantageous is where non-money-making functions, such as the provision of lavatories, rest places for staff, or other facilities, are removed to the furthest corners of the railway station, while places to eat or sell things which provide a good commercial return and for which rental can therefore be charged, to the benefit of Railtrack, are situated in the more prominent parts of the station. The disadvantages to passengers are perfectly clear. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: In supporting the amendment, perhaps I may make a couple of points. The important thing is that the train operators believe that they are closest to their customers and have a better knowledge of what customers want at a station. The amendment would also bring some competition into the operation of stations rather than giving them all to Railtrack. It would mean that they could appeal to the rail regulator, as the noble Baroness has said.
	Concerns may arise in regard to Railtrack's financial position, but that would be protected by the rail regulator's obligation to ensure that Railtrack is able to finance its activities. We do not feel that there is a problem. I understand that some negotiation is going on between Railtrack and ATOC at the moment. It may well be that by the time the Bill reaches its Report stage the matter will have been resolved. At present, there is a strong feeling among the train operators, which I support, that the amendment is highly desirable.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Amendment No. 344 repeals a prohibition on the regulator directing a person to grant a lease of a railway facility or part of one. The aim is to bring leases within the regulatory umbrella, but we think that a more complicated amendment would be necessary to achieve this effect. However, I shall concentrate on the underlying principle rather than any technical omissions.
	The current regulatory regime is based on the concept of permission to use railway facilities. It is not directly concerned with "ownership". The amendment therefore seeks to add a new regulatory regime on top of the existing public interest controls through licensing and access arrangements.
	We gave careful consideration to the representations that we received from the Association of Train Operators. On balance, we have concluded that the regulatory controls under the Railways Act, as amended by this Bill, are sufficient to protect the public interest.
	Even if there is no lease, train operators can secure the rights they need to operate their business through access agreements with Railtrack. The terms of such agreements have to be approved by the regulator, who also has powers of direction under the Railways Act.
	The current station access conditions require Railtrack and other station facility owners to reach agreement with or consult various parties before changing arrangements at stations. The regulator can also control the operation of stations through the granting of licences.
	The Bill clarifies that the regulator has the flexibility to determine that matters in access agreements might better be dealt with alternatively, or as well as, in a licence. This would have the effect of moving enforcement for the matter from the parties to the regulator, subject to the consent of the licence holder or following a referral to the Competition Commission. The regulator is considering changes to the station access regime and the enhanced powers in this Bill may be of assistance.
	I understand that the train operators' concerns surfaced after reported statements by Railtrack. I shall therefore move on to this aspect of the train operators' case for legislative change.
	Following representations from train operators, Railtrack has moved to reassure them, the shadow SRA and the Government of its intentions. I am pleased to inform the Committee that, after extensive discussions with ATOC, Railtrack has made a commitment to the shadow SRA that it will offer leases on broadly comparable terms to such operators as the franchising director--in future the SRA--nominates during the franchise replacement process. The agreement will provide a mechanism to resolve the terms, in the event that the parties cannot agree. It will cover all of Railtrack's franchised stations and leased areas on major stations for the replacement of every franchise in the country. Railtrack's commitment will be made effective through either a memorandum of understanding or a legally binding agreement between Railtrack and the franchising director.
	The creation of a new power for the regulator to direct the granting of a lease would be a fundamental shift in railway regulation. It should not be undertaken lightly. The existing matrix provides a high degree of regulatory influence and control. We believe that the controls under the amended Railways Act, supplemented by the new assurances given by Railtrack, are sufficient to protect the public interest in stations.
	I hope that, in the light of that information, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That was a full response--so full, I did not follow every word. I will carefully read the Minister's comments, then consider what to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 24 [Review of access charges by Regulator]:

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 345:
	Page 283, line 24, after ("agreement") insert ("in respect of such access").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: This schedule is an addition and allows an appeal to the Competition Commission against the decision of the rail regulator on a periodic review of access charging. Amendment No. 345 confines an appeal to the access charge and does not allow the commission to probe issues such as performance regimes. Amendment No. 349 adds other beneficiaries to those allowed to appeal against the determination of an access charge. At present, the right of appeal is confined to the facility owner, Railtrack. Beneficiaries would be added, among which would be Freightliner. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support both amendments. There is wide interest in this abstruse but important matter of clarification. Also, it seems extraordinary that a beneficiary cannot appeal when the facility owner and other parties can do so.

Earl Attlee: Several of my amendments are in this group but, although I am bright eyed and bushy tailed, we ought to make progress.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether that means I should respond only to Amendments Nos. 345 and 349. The group concerns access charges and the Competition Commission's right to veto proposed licence or access charges. The Bill brings the railways regulatory regime closer into line with equivalent utilities regimes. I do not recognise Amendment No. 345 from the speeches made in favour of it, because it would restrict the scope of the access review mechanism to charges for access, which would be too restrictive. Access contracts cover charges for access but also a number of ancillary services such as signalling and timetabling--without which access would be meaningless. Payment for those services should be capable of review.
	Amendments Nos. 347, 349, 351 and 352 would give train operating companies the right to object to the regulator's proposed decision on the access charge review. The companies' rights are effectively preserved by the new arrangements. They do not currently have a right to object to the findings of a review because that is principally a matter between the regulator and Railtrack. TOCs are customers of Railtrack and, in determining the access charge, the regulator effectively supplants what would otherwise be a commercially unequal negotiation between a monopoly supplier and its dependent customers. We have put in place arrangements which prevail in other utilities. We do not believe that it is right to extend to train operating companies the right to a review notice.
	Without referring to any other Conservative amendments, I should like to deal with Amendment No. 348 which corrects a cross-referencing error. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for noticing that error. I am pleased to accept the noble Earl's amendment, even though he has not spoken to it.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We should congratulate the noble Earl for his victory. Perhaps if none of us said anything about our amendments they would all be accepted. That would be a very novel way to conduct the Committee stage. I cannot be quite as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as the noble Earl because obviously I did not make clear the purpose of Amendment No. 345. Its purpose is not to confine the review of access charging simply to access charges but to the appeal against the review. However, at this late hour I shall not press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 346 and 347 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 348:
	Page 284, line 39, leave out ("17(6)") and insert ("17(7)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 349 to 356 not moved.]
	Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 231 and 232 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 357 not moved.]
	Clause 233 [Transfer of Regulator's functions to Secretary of State]:
	[Amendment No. 357A not moved.]
	Clause 233 agreed to.
	Clauses 234 to 238 agreed to.
	Schedule 25 agreed to.
	Clause 239 agreed to.
	Clause 240 [Licence modifications following Competition Commission report]:
	[Amendments Nos. 358 to 360 not moved.]
	Clause 240 agreed to.
	Clause 241 [Competition functions of Regulator]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 360A:
	Page 155, leave out line 32.

Earl Attlee: Clause 241 threatens market uncertainty in the business of raising finance for new railway rolling stock and thus jeopardises future investment in new trains. The Government introduced Clause 241 into the Bill in another place. There was little, if any, debate on it and this is the first opportunity for Parliament properly to consider it.
	Clause 241 is said to "clarify" the powers of the rail regulator under the Competition Act 1998. It deals with powers over railway competition issues not explicitly covered by the Railways Act 1993. They are the areas in which the rail regulator exercises concurrent functions with the Director General of Fair Trading. The Competition Act 1998 gave the rail regulator concurrent functions with the DGFT over "railway services".
	Clause 241(3) replaces "railway services" with the term "services relating to railways" and specifically defines them in paragraphs (a) to (d) as railway services; most importantly, the provision or maintenance of rolling stock; the development, maintenance or renewal of a network; and the development, provision or maintenance of information systems. There is no need for the clause, in particular paragraph (b). That clearly applies to the rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) which own the existing rail rolling stock and lease it to the operators. The ROSCOs are the source of investment in the trains.
	The regulator already believes that he has the powers contained in paragraph (b). He has said that he is going to question the train operating companies later this year to check that the rolling stock suppliers are not acting uncompetitively. The ROSCOs accept that they are covered by the Competition Act term "railway services". Any anti-competitive practice would be covered by that Act and the rail regulator would exercise concurrent functions in any OFT inquiry into their market.
	The ROSCOs have published codes of conduct agreed with the regulator. The codes set out how they will behave towards new and existing customers, particularly if rolling stock moves from one operator to another in the event of a franchise changing hands. If Clause 241 does not represent an extension of the powers of the regulator, there is no need for it. If Clause 241 does represent an extension of the powers of the regulator, the additional regulatory risk will affect the international sources of funding which the ROSCOs use to raise new capital for the trains. It would drive up the cost of capital, make capital harder to obtain and make financing new trains more difficult. And no one has been consulted about it.
	ROSCOs have already raised £2.4 billion for investment in new rolling stock. Over the next 10 years, £10 billion will have to be found to replace ageing trains and provide new trains to meet the 50 per cent growth in the number of rail passengers, which everyone, including the Government, want.
	All that will have to come from private investors, who need a stable regulatory environment. At the least, Ministers should state explicitly that Clause 241 does not conceal a hidden agenda for greater interference in the rolling stock market. It must guarantee that a regulator will not use this clarification to extend his powers into detailed interference in the operation of the rolling stock market. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I can assure him that there is no hidden agenda. The amendment would remove the provision and maintenance of rolling stock from the list of services where the rail regulator has concurrent powers with the Director of Fair Trading under the Competition Act. Since 1st April, the rail regulator has had powers under the Competition Act 1998 in relation to anti-competitive agreements and so forth, which relate to the supply of railway services. It is widely assumed that agreements for the maintenance and provision of rolling stock by the rolling stock leasing companies relate to the supply of railway services and in our view that is the correct interpretation.
	However, as the Railways Act 1993 defined "railway services" narrowly as "passenger goods, light maintenance, station and network services", and rolling stock services are none of those, it would not be beyond the wit of the law to argue that agreements relating to railway services should be narrowly construed to mean agreements for railway services and therefore exclude rolling stock services.
	We want to put the position beyond doubt, with clarification that services provided by the rolling stock leasing companies, and also railway engineering and information services, fall within the orbit of the regulator's jurisdiction under the Competition Act 1998. I hope that that is the assurance for which the noble Earl was looking.

Earl Attlee: I shall study carefully what the Minister said. With the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 241 agreed to.
	Clauses 242 and 243 agreed to.
	Clause 244 [Passenger Transport Executives]:
	[Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 not moved.]
	Clause 244 agreed to.
	Clause 245 agreed to.
	Clauses 246 to 248 agreed to.
	Schedule 26 agreed to.
	Clause 249 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 363 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 364:
	After Clause 249, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:INFORMATION ABOUT CAPACITY AND REGIONAL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
	(" . The Authority shall exercise its powers under section 80 of the Railways Act 1993 to obtain information (and publish the same in such manner as is calculated to bring it to the attention of those with an interest in such information) at such intervals as it may consider appropriate regarding--
	(a) spare capacity in respect of railway facilities and network installations, and
	(b) assets, revenue and profits by reference to such regions as the Authority may consider appropriate.").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 364, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 365. If the railway service is to improve and expand, new operators should be encouraged to come onto the scene. In order to encourage them, information about where spare capacity and commercial opportunities exist should be made available. It has been suggested that Railtrack's monopoly over track and signalling could be open to tender on certain stretches of the existing network. This new clause will oblige Railtrack to split its figures in order to reveal the assets and make clear the revenues and profits on a regional basis. That better accounting will help in negotiations for the upgrading of lines.
	Amendment No. 365 is designed to ensure that Railtrack's maintenance of track and other facilities is monitored closely and that it is named and shamed for failings in that respect. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I contend that these amendments are not necessary. These matters are already within the jurisdiction of the Rail Regulator and he is dealing with them. He has a consultation process under way in relation to a set of licence modifications under Sections 12 to 15 of the Railways Act 1993. Those relate to the setting of access charges by Railtrack, the information that it provides annually to the regulator about its activities in relation to the network management statement, and matters concerning the condition, capacity and capability of Railtrack's assets.
	The six separate regional supplements to the network management statement focus on regional investment expenditure and on the role of the rail network in the economic and social development of each region. They reflect the development of regional transport strategies and local transport plans. In November last year the regulator announced that he also intended to consult about a further licence condition requiring Railtrack to establish and maintain a comprehensive and reliable register of its assets.
	Those actions cover the elements that the amendments would require. Therefore, the amendments duplicate existing work of the Rail Regulator. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured by that and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read it in Hansard and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 365 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 366:
	After Clause 249, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT OR OPERATE NEW RAILWAY FACILITIES ETC
	(" .--(1) Any person may apply to the Authority for permission to construct or operate new railway facilities or new network installations and the Authority may grant such permission on such terms as it may consider appropriate.
	(2) A permission granted under subsection (1) shall not obviate the need for the applicant to obtain the appropriate licence from the Regulator and such other permissions and consents that may be necessary for the purpose of constructing or operating such railway facility or network installation or to enter into any access contract that may be required in connection therewith.
	(3) In the event of a dispute between the applicant and any relevant facility owner or installation owner as to the charges payable to such facility owner or installation owner under any access contract required, either person may refer the matter to the Regulator whose ruling as to such charges shall be binding on the applicant and the relevant facility owner or installation owner.").

Earl Attlee: This amendment is designed to allow any company that wishes to build new lines not provided by Railtrack to apply for permission to the Strategic Rail Authority or to the Secretary of State. That could allow micro-franchises to be set up to run local trains in rural or urban areas. It would also allow companies to build cheap rail lines for the transit of freight. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: This proposed new clause is--a splendid word for this time of night!--otiose. The authority does not have the standing to give permission to any person to construct or operate facilities. Depending on who the applicant is and what permitted development rights already exist, a person may have no need to gain permission from a public authority. If existing powers and rights are not sufficient, then procedures to gain those are already in place under the Transport and Works Act. Applications for orders under that Act are made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The authority can make its view known to the Secretary of State and may appear at any public inquiry.
	The other provisions in the amendment are already incorporated in the Railways Act 1993. Section 6 of that Act requires the operator of a railway asset to have a licence or an exemption. Sections 17 and 18 cover the need for regulatory approval of contracts for access. The ruling of the regulator over access charges is already covered by Section 17 of the 1993 Act.
	The new clause could not serve a useful purpose. There is already a well used procedure to allow persons to construct and use railway facilities. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his response. It is disappointing when the Minister does not support an amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 250 agreed to.
	Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments about railways]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 367:
	Page 312, line 13, leave out paragraph 19.

Earl Attlee: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 368 to 370. Paragraph 19 appears innocuous but it gives the Secretary of State the power to grant exemptions from licences at any time, whereas under the 1993 Act such exemptions could be granted only when the Act came into force and were a tool in setting the system up. An ongoing power as proposed in the clause could be abused. The amendment would remove it.
	Amendment No. 368 would delete sub-paragraph (3), which removes the obligation on the Secretary of State to publicise any exemption granted from Sections 17 and 18 of the 1993 Act to those persons to whom it applies. It is difficult to see the point of removing that requirement.
	On Amendment No. 369, if a rail operator has been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with the procedural requirements on making a penalty order, Section 57(2) allows a court to impose a lesser monetary penalty rather than quash the order. A schedule defect should not always lead to the voiding of the substantive action. The court should be able to decide when the operator has been so severely prejudiced by the procedural defects that the penalty should not be allowed to stand and when the prejudice is not so severe and a reduction in the penalty is more appropriate.
	Amendment No. 370 would restore the provisions in Section 80(6) of the 1993 Act that anyone failing to provide information as required under that section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. The Bill would weaken the regulatory system by deleting that provision. Why should it not be an offence to fail to provide information to the authority? We would support protection against improper disclosure by the authority for the person being required to provide information and compensation if it is improperly disclosed. However, we see no point in having a requirement to provide information if there is no sanction for anyone refusing to provide it. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: By revoking Section 7(10) of the Railways Act 1993 we are restoring to the Secretary of State the power to grant licence exemptions. That power originally ceased on the coming into force of Section 6 of the Railways Act. Under that power the Secretary of State made the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994 which gave a broad range of licence exemptions.
	While the rail regulator has the power to make exemptions, he does not have the power to make whole classes of exemptions. There may well be cases in the future in which class exemptions are appropriate. An important feature of the Secretary of State's power--as opposed to the regulator's--is that he must grant exemptions by way of an order made by statutory instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny and a negative resolution procedure under the Railways Act 1993.
	Amendment No. 368 would reinstate a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish facility exemptions. The publication requirement in Section 20 is being revoked because it is considered to be otiose.
	When the Secretary of State makes an exemption, he does so by way of a statutory instrument. All public general statutory instruments must be published and sold under Section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. That contrasts with the position when the regulator produces an exemption other than by way of a statutory instrument and where a specific duty to publish is necessary. So the removal of a Railways Act provision does not relieve the Secretary of State of the obligation to publish any exemptions which he makes. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by that.
	Amendment No. 369 is unnecessary. Provisions relating to financial penalties are now wholly consolidated in new Sections 57A to 57F as introduced under Clause 224 of the Bill. The power of the court on appeal to substitute a lesser amount for a penalty imposed by the regulator or the SRA has been moved to Section 57F(4)(b) and the old power in Section 57(2)(b) is a necessary consequential repeal.
	Amendment No. 370 would remove criminal liability for a failure to provide information to the SRA in response to a request. In the interests of better regulation we always look closely at whether it is appropriate to criminalise actions where there are other more appropriate sanctions. If a person fails to respond to a request by the SRA to provide it with information, the SRA can under Section 80(8) of the Railways Act ask a court to order the delivery of that information and if the person concerned refuses he could be penalised for being in contempt of court.
	We consider this to be a more appropriate sanction than criminalisation. That should be kept (as it will be under Section 87(7)) to cases where the person may have deliberately falsified the information which is provided to the SRA. This is a gentle deregulatory measure, therefore, and does nothing to weaken the ability of the SRA to seek information that it needs under Section 80.
	I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: The word "deregulation" was magic to me. I look forward to reading the details of the Minister's reply in Hansard. With the usual caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 368 to 370 not moved.]
	Schedule 27 agreed to.
	Clause 251 agreed to.
	Schedule 28 [Transitionals and savings about railways]:
	[Amendment No. 371 not moved.]
	Schedule 28 agreed to.

Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before three o'clock.